Skip to main content

Full text of "Forest resource appraisal of North Carolina, 1945; survey"

:S3 




a. x 



NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OP CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

R. Bruce Etheridge, Director 



Bulletin No. 53 



Forest Resource Appraisal 

of 

North Carolina 

(1945) 



Survey by: 
Geo. K. Slocum, Associate Professor of -Forestry, N. C. State College 
Chas. R. Ross, Regional Consultant American Forestry Association 



Cooperating Agencies: 

N. C. DEPT. OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

N. C. STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING 

AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 



NORTH CAROLINA 
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

R. Bruce Etheridge, Director 



^SSfe 



Bulletin No. 53 






FOREST RESOURCE APPRAISAL 

OF 
NORTH CAROLINA 

(1945) 



Survey by: 
Geo. K. Slocum, Associate Professor of Forestry, N. C. State College 
Chas. R. Ross, Regional Consultant, American Forestry Association 



Cooperating Agencies: 

N. C. DEPT. OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

N. C. STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING 

AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 



PUBLISHED BY DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND PARKS 

W. K. Beichler 
State Forester 

DIVISION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 
Paul Kelly 

Industrial Engineer 



Four Major Forest Problems In 
North Carolina 




1. Hardwood Succession. Pine timber made the state's reputation in 
the lumber world. Later it attracted pulp mills. Pine yields considerably 
more than hardwoods on most sites but hardwoods are gradually re- 
placing pine. This area in Wake County is now taken over by hardwood 
trees, sprouts, and culls after two cuttings in the original pine stand. 





Mm-: ■ 



^m 







3. Removal of Pine Seed Sources. Pine will often reseed an area after 
cutting if trees are left to scatter seed. More and more cuttings today 
fail to leave seed trees, as on the above area in Bladen County. It will be 
necessary to plant pines here to establish a worthwhile forest. The hard- 
woods now coming up will be worth little, if anything, on this poor, 
sandy site. 





IBVHI 



2. Widespread Burning in Eastern North Carolina. This cut-over area 
in Jones County is typical of several million acres in that fires are not 
being effectively prevented. Fire protection facilities must be greatly 
increased. The ground shown in the above picture is covered with pond 
pine seedlings and sprouts. They would re-stock the area very well if 
continual burning were stopped. 



4. Accumulations of Hardwood Cull Trees and Brush. Timber com- 
panies at present have very little use for hardwood trees that will not 
make sawlogs. Regeneration of desirable sawtimber in areas of this type 
is impossible, unless the unwanted overwood can be disposed of in some 
manner. Currituck County. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/forestresourceap1945sloc 



FOREWORD 



The Forest Resource Appraisal is a project of nation- 
wide scope, organized by the American Forestry Associa- 
tion early in 1944. It is a fact-finding survey to determine 
the effects of the war period upon the country's forests, 
their productive condition, and to study means of improv- 
ing these conditions. The Board of Directors of the Asso- 
ciation decided on the project in 1942 and funds were con- 
tributed in 1943 and 1944 by over 500 organizations, in- 
dustrialists, and individuals alert to the need for forest 
■conservation and development in the post-war economy. 
John B. Woods was appointed Director of the National 
Project. 

This effort on the part of the American Forestry Asso- 
ciation was in turn matched by forestry and planning 
agencies within the various states. Dr. J. V. Hofmann, 
Director of the N. C. State College Division of Forestry; 
W. K. Beichler, State Forester, and J. S. Holmes, Asso- 
ciate State Forester, arranged for the cooperation of their 
organizations. 

The North Carolina Forest Resource Appraisal was 
begun in March, 1945. The work was carried out under a 
cooperative agreement between the North Carolina State 
College Division of Forestry, the Division of Forestry and 
Parks and Division of Commerce and Industry of the 
N. C. Department of Conservation and Development, and 
the American Forestry Association. 

The Department of Conservation and Development 
furnished one man, James Roberts, Washington, D. C, 
as an office computer, and is publishing this report as its 
chief contribution to the project. Opinions, conclusions, 
and statistical data expressed herein are not necessarily 
endorsed by this Department. 

All field work and the development of the report was 
done by the authors. 

Appreciation is expressed to the North Carolina Crop 
Reporting Service, the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, the 
U. S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Ten- 
nessee Valley Authority and the Forest Survey of the 
TJ. S. Forest Service for valuable assistance in the survey. 
Inclusion of information from the U. S. Forest Survey is 
frequent in this report. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword iii 

North Carolina Forestry Facts v 

Summary vi 

Physical Features of the State 1 

Explanation of Appraisal Methods 1 

Land Use in North Carolina 3 

County Statistics: Total Land, Forest, and Non-forest Area. Will Forest Land Increase or Decrease? 4 

County Statistics : Utilization of Non-forest Land 8 

County Statistics : Ownership of Forest Land 8 

The Supply of Sawtimber 12 

Sawtimber Suitable for Poles and Piling 14 

The Supply of Timber Below Sawtimber-Size 15 

Piedmont Temporarily Gains in Under-sawlog-size Pine 16 

Wake County — An Abandoned Cotton Field 16 

Other Material Suitable for Cordwood Use 17 

The Supply of Pulpwood 19 

The Cull Problem 19 

Where Are the Culls? 19 

Timber Harvesting in North Carolina 19 

Minimum Size of Trees Cut 21 

Availability of Stumpage 21 

Lumber Production 21 

Pulpwood Production 24 

Fuelwood Cutting 24 

Degree of Satisfactory Stocking 24 

Non-Stocking 26 

Reproduction 28 

Causes of Fire 29 

Extent of Burning 29 

Overwhelming Fire Problem in Eastern North Carolina 30 

State-wide Fire Control 31 

Can Forest Management Maintain Pine? 32 

Natural Succession 32 

Solution to the Problem 32 

Regulation of Commercial Timber Cutting 34 

Considerable Interest in Regulation 35 

Regulation Will Not Be Simple 35 

Recommendations 36 

Tax Situation on Forest Land 36 

The Timber Volume Balance Sheet 37 

State Forests 38 

Education of Forest Landowners 38 

Status of Forest Management 38 

Educational Efforts to Date 39 

Allowable Cut for Next 10-Year Period 41 

Conclusion 42 



IV 



NORTH CAROLINA FORESTRY FACTS 



Total area of the state 52,712 sq. mi. 33,735,680 acres 

Total water area 3,570 sq. mi. 2,284,800 acres 

Total land area 49,142 sq. mi. 31,450,880 acres 

Total forest area 29,502 sq. mi. 18,797,245 acres 



Public Ownership of Forest Land 

National Forests, U.S.F.S. Dept. of Agriculture 965,766 acres 

National Parks, Dept. of Interior 249,977 acres 

Other Federal 396,594 acres 

N. C. State Forests 40,000 acres 

N. C. State Parks 10,910 acres 

N. C. State Game Refuges and Farms 80,645 acres 

County and Municipal Forests 56,096 acres 

Other State 93,816 acres 



5.14 per cent 
1.33 per cent 
2.12 per cent 
0.22 per cent 
0.05 per cent 
0.42 per cent 
0.30 per cent 
0.50 per cent 



10.08 percent 



Private Ownership of Forest Land 

Farm Woodland 9,093,377 acres 

Industrial 1,543,911 acres 

Other 6,266,153 acres 



48.37 per cent 

8.22 per cent 

33.33 per cenc 



89.92 per cent 



Timber Stand 

Estimated saw timber stand 1938* 43,606,600 M. bd. ft. 

Estimated saw timber stand 1945 41,121,000 M. bd. ft. 

Estimated under-saw timber stand 1938* 78,464,000 cords 

Estimated under-saw timber stand 1945 87,263,000 cords 

Total volume in standard cords of all sound wood, 1938* 256,962,400 cords 

(excluding chestnut) 1945 257,863,000 cords 



♦Figures from U. S. Forest Survey 




SUMMARY 



The Forest Resource Appraisal of North Carolina was 
undertaken in 1945 as a cooperative project between the 
American Forestry Association, the Division of Forestry 
and Parks of N. C. Department of Conservation and De- 
velopment, and the Division of Forestry of N. C. State 
College. The North Carolina Appraisal is part of a na- 
tion-wide survey conducted by the Association to deter- 
mine the effects of the war period upon the nation's for- 
ests. In many states, more detailed information was de- 
sired by the local cooperating agencies than was deemed 
necessary for the national report. This was the situation 
in North Carolina. A time limit of one year was imposed 
for purposes of obtaining the field data and writing the 
report. 

As North Carolina is divided into 100 counties it was 
necessary to conduct the survey by sample counties. Twen- 
ty-one sample counties were carefully chosen from the va- 
rious topographic units; five were selected in the North 
Coastal Plain, six in the South Coastal Plain, five in the 
Piedmont, and five in the Mountain region. Forest area 
and timber volumes of each county were determined from 
aerial photographs after a thorough study of ground con- 
ditions was completed. All volume estimates are net, de- 
fective material having been deducted at the time of mak- 
ing ground measurements. Defect is estimated to run 5 to 
8 per cent of gross volume for pine, and 25 per cent of 
gross volume for hardwood. Volume tables for under-saw- 
log-size were developed from existing Forest Survey tables 
and the International % Inch Rule was used for all saw- 
timber. 

New forest acreage figures were determined for all coun- 
ties because of inaccuracies in previous county areas as 
given by the U. S. Census. The county and State gross 
acreage figures were corrected by the U. S. Census in 1940, 
but no new forest acreage figures had been estimated. New 
acreage figures were also determined for non-forest, cul- 
tivated, idle, pasture, highway, and other land. Ownership 
of forest land was divided and listed by counties under the 
headings; Public forest reserve, commercial forest area, 
National Forest, farm woodland, and other. 

Sawtimber volumes for the State were developed from 
the sample counties. The present volume of 41 billion 
board feet is 6 per cent lower than reported by the Forest 
Survey in 1938. Pine sawtimber has a volume of 25 billion 
board feet, hardwood 16 billion. Average sawtimber stands 
per average forested acre are low. The state average for 
all sawtimber being 2.2 thousand board feet per acre, 61 
per cent of which is pine and 39 per cent hardwood. 

Under-sawlog-size trees have gained approximately 12 
per cent in volume since 1938. The average stand per acre 
for pine and hardwoods combined is 4.71 cords, 53 per cent 
of which is pine and 47 per cent is hardwood. 

U. S. Forest Survey figures show that for the 7 year 
period from 1937 through 1943 the net annual growth for 
all material 5.0" d.b.h. and larger, was 9,310 thousand 
cords while the annual drain was 8,552 thousand cords. 



Pine has been over-cut as shown by an annual growth of 
5,636 thousand cords against an annual drain of 5,847 
thousand cords. Hardwood growth has definitely gained 
during this period with an annual growth of 3,674 thous- 
and cords and drain of 2,705 thousand cords. 

Field data show that North Carolina's forest area is 
49.9 per cent stocked with sawtimber and under-sawlog- 
size material, 28.3 per cent stocked with reproduction, and 
21.8 per cent or* 4 million acres is non-stocked with timber 
producing tree species. The greatest single cause of non- 
stocking is the obstruction by culls and worthless hard-, 
wood brush. 

Lumber production has been fairly constant since 1889. 
The. average annual cut in North Carolina for the past 56 
years has been 1.3 billion board feet. 

Pulpwood production has been steadily rising from 240 
thousand cords in 1937 to 547 thousand cords in 1943. This 
trend is still upward. 

Fire is a very serious problem, especially in eastern 
North Carolina. Appraisal results show that approximate- 
ly 38 per cent of the forest area of the North Coastal 
Plain and 47 per cent of the forest area of the South 
Coastal Plain has been burned over in the five year period 
preceding 1946. For the same period the Piedmont has had 
a 7.7 per cent burn, while in the Mountain region the burn 
was 1.2 per cent. 

The problem of regulation of cutting on forest lands 
was approached and studied, but no definite conclusions 
were reached except that some provision should be made 
to prevent the complete removal of pine seed sources and 
that urgent need does not exist for rules applying to hard-. 
wood cutting. 

In spite of the unfairness of the present system of class- 
ifying land for tax purposes, taxes are not unduly high in 
many counties, the eastern counties having the fairest as- 
sessment on timberlands. 

It is believed that the State of North Carolina should 
own and operate State Forests for timber production and 
demonstration. These forests should be located chiefly in 
the Piedmont and Coastal Plain; to a lesser extent in the 
mountains due to existing large Federal ownership. 

Forestry education work has been steadily progressing 
since the appointment of J. S. Holmes as State Forester 
in 1909. This phase of forestry is, however, far from being 
adequate. Of the 1,600 million board of feet of lumber cut 
in 1943 from 17 million acres of forest land, 300 million 
feet or less was cut under the influence of educational 
work. 



* In accordance with the "Conservative Estimates of Acres Plantable 
by States" by Philip C. Wakeley, Silviculturist, Southern Forest Experi- 
ment Station, exclusive of the Mountain unit, there are 892,300 acres in 
North Carolina. The Mountain unit shows 120,700 acres of abandoned 
cropland which in all probability would have to be reforested artificial- 
ly. This would give a total of 1,013,000 acres which should be planted to, 
forest trees in North Carolina. 



VI 






CO 


iH 


CD 


cd 


•H 


ra 


-P 


•H 


£1 


aJ 


P 


U 


o 


P. 


o 


ft 




< 


CD 




rH 


<D 


P. 


O 


e 


^ 


cd 


2 


CO 


O 




0} 


-d 


CD 


c - 


K 


as 


-P 


CO 


m 


C 


0) 


o 


Jh 


•H 


O 


bO 


fo 


© 




K 


«i 




£; 


o 


H 


•H 


f-3 


^ 


o 


P. 


K 


at 


«i 


U 


O 


bO 




O 


w 


•H 


&H 


CO 


K 


i» 


O 


,£ 


is; 


(^ 



vn 



PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE STATE 

North Carolina has three distinct physiographic regions, 
namely: the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont Plateau, and the 
Mountains. Forest conditions vary widely from region to 
region, therefore, much of the information presented in 
this report is given separately for each one. Because the 
Coastal Plain contains approximately one-half of the for- 
est land in the state, and as it is desired to focus atten- 
tion on important sectional differences, this report further 
divides the Coastal Plain into a northern half and a south- 
ern half. Figure 1 shows the manner in which the state 
is divided into region or units, and the counties contained 
in each unit. 

The four divisions listed above are the same as those 
followed by the U. S. Forest Survey of 1937 and 1938, to 
which frequent references will be made. The former survey 
obtained certain basic information which this survey did 
not attempt to duplicate. 

As its name implies, the Coastal Plain is a low plain, 
extending about 15 miles inland. The eastern portion is 
the Flatwoods or Tidewater area ; low and flat, intersected 
by large sounds and broad rivers which are at sea level. 
Poor drainage results in numerous swampy areas of vari- 
able size. 

The western half of this plain progressively rises in 
elevation and is consequently better drained. Here, the 
swampy areas are narrowed to lowland bottoms through 
which slow-moving creeks make their way. 

Topography, soils, and moisture largely determine the 
forest types, or characteristic associations of trees. Lob- 
lolly pine-hardwoods is the most common forest type in 
the Coastal Plain. This pine, mixed with gum and other 
hardwoods, is found almost everywhere except in the more 
swampy places. Pond pine-hardwoods characteristically 
occupy upland poorly drained areas, some variations of 
which are known as pocosins and bays. Bottomland hard- 
woods grow thickly along the flooded lowlands of rivers 
and streams. Two out of five of the sound trees in the 
Co&stal Plain, however, are loblolly pine. About one sound 
tree in five is a gum — black and tupelo gums being more 
numerous than red gum. Oaks come next, then pond pine. 
Various other hardwoods and pine make up the rest. 

The Piedmont Plateau lies in the middle of the state and 
occupies one-third of its area. An upland section of end- 
less small valleys and rolling hills, it is well drained 
throughout, and thickly populated by small farms. 

The loblolly pine-hardwood type is prevalent in the east- 
ern portion of the Piedmont region, but gradually plays 
out in the second tier of Piedmont counties. Shortleaf pine- 
hardwoods occupy nearly one half of this unit. Here the 
hardwood group is dominated by oaks, gums decreasing 
in number as the wet lands of the Coastal Plain are left 
behind. Pines account for most of the board foot and cord- 
wood volumes, one tree out of three being a shortleaf 
pine. Virginia pine becomes the most abundant pine in the 
north and west sections of the Piedmont. The Virginia 
pine-hardwoods type extends as the dominant forest cover 
into the eastern part of the Mountain region. 

The Mountain region in the extreme western end of the 
■state is small by comparison with the other two units al- 
though it has a forest area greater than the entire state 
•of Connecticut. The Blue Ridge and Smoky Mountains are 
the principal mountain ranges, but there are numerous ir- 



regular cross ranges. The region as a whole is over two- 
thirds forested, the percentage of woodland exceeding that 
of the other regions. 

Pine-hardwood types make up the bulk of the mountain 
forests, although in addition to Virginia pine mixed with 
hardwoods there are also shortleaf pine and white pine 
mixtures. Oaks comprise more than half of the hardwood 
sawtimber volume, while shortleaf pine makes up nearly 
half of the total pine volume in the Mountains. Yellow 
poplar, a very desirable hardwood, and hickory, the least 
wanted hardwood, occur more frequently in the Mountains 
and Piedmont than in the Coastal Plain. 

For the state, as a whole, about 50 per cent of the saw- 
timber volume is loblolly and shortleaf pines, with other 
pine making up an additional 15 per cent. Gums and oaks 
in nearly equal proportions, account for about 25 per cent. 
Poplar, hickory, and cypress lead among the remaining 
species. When total cordwood volume of all sound trees 
over five inches d. b. h. (Diameter Breast Height) is con- 
sidered, the proportion of pine drops to about 50 per cent 
while the proportion of hard woods comes up to about 50 
per cent. Under-sawlog-size material is dominated by hard- 
woods. 

Explanation of Appraisal Methods 

The appraisal work was divided into two parts, first, 
the physical survey of forest stands and conditions in 21 
sample counties; and, second, personal and written ques- 
tionnaire contact with various organizations and indi- 
viduals. 

The physical survey undertook to determine forest area, 
volume, stocking, reproduction, incidence of fire, cutting 
methods and forest conditions in each of the sample coun- 
ties. 

The personal and written questionnaire contact work 
was undertaken to sample public and private attitudes con- 
cerning forest management, fire protection, education, tax 
situations and similar matters, not only in the sample 
counties, but in other counties as well. 

The county sampling plan. Twenty-one sample counties 
were chosen as representing the conditions most generally 
found in North Carolina. They were located as follows: 
Five in the Northern Coastal Plain, six in the Southern 
Coastal Plain, five in the Piedmont, and five in the Moun- 
tain section of the state. The method of survey for one of 
the sample counties is described below. 

New 1944 State Highway maps for each sample county 
were used as a base upon which the physical survey of 
each county was planned.. 

Method of obtaining forest area. Forest area was deter- 
mined, for each of the sample counties, from aerial photo- 
graphs. Photographs owned by the Soil Conservation Ser- 
vice, or by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration of 
the USDA, were used for this purpose. 

The photographs were selected so as to eliminate over- 
lapping and give complete coverage for each county. A lin- 
ear grid with openings comparable to one-acre sample 
plots at 8-chain intervals was placed on the center of each 
photograph. The strips were located so as to intersect top- 
ography for each county. 

Determination of forest area was not attempted until 
after the completion of the field work, since it was neces- 
sary to become familiar with conditions on the ground be- 
for interpreting the photographs. Plots were classified as 



(1) 




(2) 



^forest or non-forest, great care being exercised to assign 
house lots, rivers, highways, power lines, residential areas, 
and fields to the non-forest category. Approximately 1200 
plots were read from the photographs for each county. 
Forest acreage was then determined on a percentage basis 
from the total land area of the county. It is believed that 
forest area figures, as determined by the above method, are 
more accurate than other existing figures for the same 
counties, although time did not permit the making of new 
forest determinations for all counties having aerial photo- 
graphs. 

Method of Obtaining Timber Volume. When interpreting 
the aerial photographs for forest acreage, all forest plots 
were classified according to condition class, in order to im- 
prove the accuracy of stand data derived from compara- 
tively few field plots. Condition classes segregated the 
more or less similar forest stands, but were not standard- 
ized for the state. Examination of the photographs would 
show what conditions could be reliably distinguished. One 
set of condition classes, ' good for summer and fall photo- 
graphy, was as follows: 1. Large trees — good density; 2. 
Large trees — poor density; 3. Advanced reproduction or 
sapling stands showing no individual tree crowns ; 4. Repro- 
duction. Field plots were also separated by condition 
classes. Average volumes and other forest data were first 
■compiled for each condition class; county totals were then 
obtained through properly weighing each class by its 
percentage of total forest area. 

Ten to fourteen aerial photographs were selected for 
■each sample county, the photographs being selected so as 
to grid the county on an equally distributed pattern and 
given representative coverage conditions found in the sam- 
ple county. These photographs were then accurately lo- 
cated on the county highway map. (Figure 2). At least 
six quarter-acre sample plots were mechanically located 
at speedometer intervals of one-half mile on each photo- 
graph. Plot location was at five, ten or twenty-chain inter- 
vals from the road. Plots were exactly located on the pho- 
tograph which was frequently carried to each plot. A 
•check could thus be kept on condition class as found on the 
ground, as compared with office reading of the photograph. 
Condition class, volumes, stocking, reproduction, fire oc- 
currence, and other data were recorded while on the plot. 

Volume was determined for sawlog size and under-saw- 
log-size material. Sawlog material may be defined as a 
tree 9.0", or larger, d.b.h (Diameter Breast Height, i.e. 
4% feet from average ground level) for pine, 13.0" or 
larger d.b.h. for hardwood. The tree must be 50 per cent 
sound or contain one sound 12' butt log. The merchantable 
sawlog top is 5.5". The volume is expressed in board feet. 
In some cases sawlogs are being cut from pines under 9" 
and from hardwoods under 13", but it is not felt that the 
standard should be lowered. 

Under-sawlog-size material is 5.0" to 8.9" d.b.h., and a 
4.0" top for pine, 5.0 to 12.9" d.b.h. and 4.0" top for hard- 
wood. The tree must be 75 per cent sound and reasonably 
straight. The volume is expressed in standard cords. 

North Carolina has more than its share of cull trees — 
trees of sawlog or under-sawlog size which fail to meet 
specifications for those classes. Unfortunately, industries 
are not making use of them, so there is little demand for 
information as to their volumes, location, and other fea- 
tures. There was not time, considering their minor im- 



portance, to sound out cull trees and determine accurately 
the sound wood in them. The better culls, that is, those 
considered to have enough usable wood to justify the cost 
of cutting, were counted, and these were designated as 
"usable" culls. 

The following information was also recorded for each 
plot; the number and size of poles, reproduction, stocking, 
burning in five years, cutting and product cut in five years, 
and any other pertinent facts. 

Volume Tables. The International X A Inch Rule was used 
for sawtimber. Form class volume tables were employed to 
account for variation in lumber yields caused by tree taper. 

All volume estimates are net, defective material having 
been deducted at the time of making ground measure- 
ments. Defect is estimated to run about 5 to 8 per cent of 
gross volume for pine, and 25 per cent of gross volume for 
hardwood. 

To make a more reliable comparison with Forest Sur- 
vey estimates, and thereby show trends in timber supplies, 
volume tables for under-sawlog-size were developed from 
existing Forest Survey tables. These tables are given as 
follows : 

ESTIMATED VOLUME IN UNDER-SAWLOG-SIZE 
TREES 







PINE 


HARDWOOD 




d.b.h. 
inches 


No. 
cords 


d.b.h. 
inches 


No. 
cords 


North Coastal Plain . . 


... 6" 


.04 


6" 


.04 


and 










South Coastal Plain 


8" 


.09 


8" 
10" 
12" 


.09 

.149 

.225 


Piedmont 


... 6" 


.037 


6" 


.036 




8" 


.089 


8" 
10" 
12" 


.087 
.149 
.226 


Mountains 


... 6" 


.038 


6" 


.036 




8" 


.089 


8" 
10" 
12" 


.070 
.099 
.203 



LAND USE IN NORTH CAROLINA 

County Statistics : total land, forest, and non-forest area. 
The information assembled in Table 1 appears to be as 
reliable as any available at present. Total land areas for 
counties are from careful re-measurements made by the 
1940 U. S. Census. They differ considerably, in some cases, 
from total county areas listed by the Census in previous 
decades, but are assumed to be correct as aerial photogra- 
phy has provided an improved basis for accuracy. 

The acreages of land in each county devoted to forest 
and non-forest purposes are not accurately known. As in- 
dicated by foot notes, forest acreage figures were obtained 
from three sources and it is believed the great majority 
will be within 10 per cent of the correct acreage. The 
sample counties in which land use determinations were 
made from aerial photographs, are believed to be accurate, 
although slight changes will have occurred since the time 
the aerial photographs were made. Generally speaking, 



(3) 



land use is not static. Exact determinations must await WILL FOREST ACREAGE INCREASE OR DECREASE? 



new aerial photography, as most counties now have pho- 
tographs dating back to 1938. 

Forest areas do not include "built up" residential areas 
outside of town limits since these sections are unlikely to 
be cut over by a commercial operation. 



Except in mountainous and swampy areas, much of 
North Carolina's present forest acreage was at one time 
cleared for agriculture. The cycle of woods clearing and 
field abandonment is slowing as agricultural leaders urge 



COUNTY STATISTICS: 



Table la. 
NORTH COASTAL PLAIN 
TOTAL LAND, FOREST, AND NON-FOREST AREA 



County Gross Area Water Area Land Area Non-forest Area 

Beaufort 612,480 

Bertie 461,440 

Camden 197,120 

Carteret 680,320 

Chowan 149,760 

Craven 502,400 

Currituck 300,160 

Dare 797,440 

Edgecombe 327,040 

Gates 223,360 

Halifax 463,360 

Hertford 231,040 

Hyde 872,960 

Martin 308,480 

Nash 353,280 

Northampton 348,160 

Pamlico 368,640 

Pasquotank 185,600 

Perquimans 207,360 

Pitt 419,840 

Tyrrell 373,120 

Washington 268,800 

Wilson 238,720 

Regional Totals 8,890,880 2,110,080 6,780,800 2,640,048 



Forest Area % Forest Area 



80,640 


531,840 


168,061 


363,779 


68.4 


17,920 


443,520 


136,604 


306,916 


69.2 


44,160 


152,960 


60,572 


92,388 


60.4 


339,840 


340,480 


87,163 


253,317 


74.4 


34,560 


115,200 


67,968 


47,232 


41.0 


38,400 


464,000 


103,472 


360,528 


77.7 


125,440 


174,720 


94,968 


80,022 


45.8 


549,120 


248,320 


77,228 


171,092 


68.9 




327,040 


190,332 


136,708 


41.8 


3,840 


219,520 


57,953 


161,567 


73.6 


1,280 


462,080 


222,723 


239,357 


51.8 


3,200 


227,840 


82,706 


145,134 


63.7 


467,200 


405,760 


102,657 


303,108 


74.7 


640 


307,840 


116,671 


191,169 


62.1 




353,280 


121,456 


148,024 


41.9 


2,560 


345,600 


171,418 


174,182 


50.4 


150,400 


218,240 


72,237 


146,003 


66.9 


39,040 


146,560 


80,022 


66,538 


45.4 


40,320 


167,040 


70,658 


96,382 


57.7 




419,840 


225,874 


193,966 


46.2 


117,760 


255,360 


41,879 


213,481 


83.2 


53,760 


215,040 


58,276 


156,764 


72.9 




238,720 


145,620 


93,100 


39.0 



4,140,752 



61.1 



COUNTY STATISTICS: 



Table lb. 
SOUTH COASTAL PLAIN 
TOTAL LAND, FOREST, AND 



NON-FOREST AREA 



County 



Gross Area 



Water Area 



Land Area 



Non-forest Area 



Forest Area % Forest Area. 



Bladen 570,240 7,680 562,560 137,265 425,295 75.4 

Brunswick 580,480 21,760 558,720 86,602 472,118 84.5 

Columbus 610,560 9,600 600,960 129,206 471,754 78.5 

Cumberland 423,680 640 423,040 142,565 280,475 66.3 

Duplin 526,720 640 526,080 178,341 347,739 66.1 

Greene 172,160 172,160 98,820 73,340 42.6 

Harnett 388,480 640 387,840 149,706 238,134 61.4 

Hoke 265,600 640 264,960 87,437 177,523 67.0 

Johnston 508,800 508,800 275,770 233,030 45.8. 

Jones 299,520 640 298,880 66,949 231,931 77.6- 

Lee 163,840 640 163,200 61,363 101,837 62.4 

Lenoir 250,240 250,240 121,116 129,124 51.6. 

Moore 430,720 640 430,080 108,810 321,270 74.7 

New Hanover 144,000 19,840 124,160 33,027 91,133 73.4 

Onslow 515,840 32,000 483,840 110,799 373,041 77.1 

Pender 556,160 7,680 548,480 83,369 465,111 84.8- 

Richmond 309,120 3,840 305,280 123,869 191,411 62.7 

Robeson 606,720 2,560 604,160 277,309 327,455 54.2' 

Sampson 616,320 616,320 248,377 367,943 59.7 

Scotland 202,880 202,880 90,079 112,801 55.6 

Wayne 355,200 355,200 179,376 175,824 49.5 

Regional Totals 8,497,280 109,440 8,387,840 2,780,155 5,607,685 66.9 



(4) 



that farming "settle down" on the good lands and keep 
them fertile through conservation practices. This will 
take a long time. Patches of woods continue to be cleared 
for pasture or tobacco, while fields are abandoned to be 
occupied by pine, oak, or gum trees. 

At present 60 per cent of North Carolina is forested. 
"Will this percentage increase, or will agricultural expan- 
sion result in widespread clearing? 

From a sifting of opinions collected in 23 counties, and 
drawing upon personal observations, it appears that the 
trend for the past 10 years has been in favor of the wood- 
land. 

Soil Conservation Service experts suggest that over 2,- 
500,000 acres of the farm forest land in the Coastal Plain 
and Piedmont should be cleared, with 500,000 acres of poor 
open land to revert to timber use. 

The comment might be made that agricultural experts 
in the South have, for decades, pointed to all the good 
land that could be cleared and farmed, but their propo- 
sals seem to have fallen" on unheeding ears. Big lumber 



companies in the deep South figured they were preparing 
the way for farms, but their farm promotion schemes did 
not produce the desired results. Cropland has been de- 
clining in the South for 40 years, woods acreage has 
been increasing. Factors other than availability of land 
have been more decisive. 

Discussion of findings by the four units follows: 

Northern and Southern Coastal Plain. The Northern 
Coastal Plain is 61 per cent forested, ranging from 31 per 
cent in Wilson to 83 per cent in Tyrrell. The Southern 
Coastal Plain is 67 per cent forested, ranging from 45 per 
cent in Greene to 85 per cent in Pender. 

The old cycle of clearing "new ground" and allowing 
"worn out" fields to grow up in trees is still in evidence. 
Yet tidewater counties show the least change of any part 
of the state, as clearing must usually be accompanied by 
drainage. Change continues actively in middle and west- 
ern Coastal Plain counties. 

Eleven counties were sampled in these two units. Six 
of these — -Halifax, Bertie, Beaufort, Jones, Pender, and 



COUNTY STATISTICS: 



Table lc. 
PIEDMONT 
TOTAL LAND, FOREST, AND NON-FOREST AREA 



County Gross Area Water Area Land Area Non-forest Area 

Alamance 277,760 

Alexander 165,760 

Anson 343,040 

Cabarrus 230,400 

Caswell 278,400 

Catawba 263,680 

Chatham 452,480 

Cleveland 298,240 

Davidson 358,400 

Davie 168,960 

Durham 192,000 

Franklin 316,160 

Forsyth 271,360 

Gaston 232,320 

Granville 347,520 

Guilford 417,280 

Iredell 380,160 

Lincoln 197,760 

Mecklenburg 351,360 

Montgomery 319,360 

Orange 254,720 

Person 256,000 

Polk 150,400 

Randolph 512,640 

Rockingham 366,080 

Rowan 337,280 

Rutherford 363,520 

Stanly 259,840 

Stokes 293,760 

Surry 344,320 

"Union 411,520 

Vance 172,160 

Wake 554,880 

Warren 284,800 

Yadkin ' 214,400 

Regional Totals 10,638,720 48,640 10,590,080 5,539,928 



Forest Area % Forest Area 





277,760 


153,324 


124,436 


44.8 


2,560 


163,200 


84,084 


79,152 


48.5 


1,920 


341,120 


156,915 


184,205 


54.0 




230,400 


144,230 


86,170 


37.4 




278,400 


125,558 


152,842* 


54.9 


3,840 


259,840 


153,306 


106,534 


41.0 




452,480 


173,752 


278,728 


61.6 




298,240 


198,926 


99,314 


33.3 


7,680 


350,720 


188,687 


162,033 


46.2 




168,960 


115,400 


53,560 


31.7 


640 


191,360 


72,525 


118,835 


62.1 




316,160 


168,512 


•147,648 


46.7 




271,360 


173,670 


97,690 


36.0 


3,200 


229,120 


143,887 


85,233* 


37.2 




347,520 


145,263 


202,257 


58.2 


640 


416,640 


236,235 


180,405 


43.3 


1,920 


378,240 


242,830 


135,410 


35.8 


640 


197,120 


131,479 


65,641 


33.3 


4,480 


346,880 


196,334 


150,546 


43.4 


7,040 


312,320 


91,197 


221,123 


70.8 




254,720 


102,397 


152,323 


59.8 




256,000 


112,640 


143,360 


56.0 


640 


149,760 


64,097 


85,663 


57.2 




512,640 


209,157 


303,48s 1 


59.2 




366,080 


199,880 


166,200 


45.4 


6,400 


330,880 


244,190 


86,690 


26.2 


1,280 


362,240 


180,396 


181,844 


50.2 


4,480 


255,360 


134,830 


120,530 


47.2 




293,760 


149,230 


144,530 


49.2 


640 


343,680 


164,623 


179,057 


52.1 




411,520 


284,772 


126,748 


30.8 




172,160 


103,640 


68,520 


39.8 


640 


554,240 


244,420 


309.820 1 


55.9 




284,800 


129,300 


155,500 


54.6 




214,400 


120,278 


94,122* 


43.9 



5,050,152 



47.7 



(5) 



Bladen were reported by Soil Conservation personnel to 
have a balanced situation with regard to new woods and 
new fields. It was found that Currituck, Tyrrell, and Rich- 
mond might have a slight trend toward increase of wood- 
land area. In Wayne and Harnett, clearing of woods seems 
to exceed the rate of field abandonment. There is general 
agreement that clearing of woodland is most active in the 
heavy tobacco producing counties. About 15 Middle and 
Western Coastal Plains counties are heavy tobacco pro- 
ducers. At present, it can be said that land clearing and 
land abandonment seem to be very nearly balanced in the 
region as a whole. 

Experts of the Soil Conservation Service say that about 
% of the forest land in the Coastal Plain is equal or su- 
perior to areas now in cultivation, and they recommend 
considerable clearing of woods on farms, whereas other 
farm experts maintain such clearing would be unwise, due 
to the need for fuel and timber on the farms. 

Piedmont. This unit is 48 per cent forested, ranging 
from 26 per cent in Rowan to 71 per cent in Montgomery. 

Clearing of woods for agriculture is active. The north- 
ern counties are heavy producers of tobacco, and periodic 
recruitment of "new ground" for this crop has always been 
considered a paying practice in the red hills. Pasture clear- 
ing for a growing cattle industry has also been responsi- 
ble for a decrease of forest acreage in some counties. 

However, erosion has been serious. This, combined with 
continued loss of cotton markets, has caused widespread 
abandonment of fields. In only one of seven Piedmont 
counties, where the matter was investigated, did agricul- 
tural leaders claim that open land was increasing at the 



expense of woodlands. This was Wake County, but even 
here a 10-year trend might show that the woodland is in- 
creasing. No opinion could be formed in Gaston, but Ran- 
dolph, Caswell, Yadkin, and Rowan show a gradual in- 
crease in woodland area. 

Soil Conservation technicians agreed that the fields be- 
ing abandoned to forest represented a desirable trend be- 
cause of poor land, small patches, and steep slope. At the 
same time, the S. C. S. says that % of the Piedmont for- 
est area might well be cleared for crops and pasture as 
these forest areas are superior to lands in cultivation at 
the present time. 

Mountains. This 21-county unit is 70 per cent forested, 
ranging from 33 per cent in Ashe to 92 per cent in Gra- 
ham. 

Opinion and observation point to the probability that 
woodland area is gradually gaining. This was said to oe 
the case in Buncombe, Jackson, and Graham, where agri- 
cultural technicians considered the trend desireable be- 
cause land had been cleared for corn and many farms on 
ridgeland never were suitable for farming. Stability was 
said to have been reached in Ashe, where farmers have 
cleared about all they can for pasture, perhaps overdoing 
it on extremely steep slopes. Woodland area was said tc 
be decreasing in Caldwell, due to industrial workers 
spreading out on new small farms. The Forest Survey in 
1938 found abandoned cropland nearly five times as ex- 
tensive as the new cropland. 

While advocating considerable clearing in the Coastal 
Plain and Piedmont, Soil Conservation Service soil capa- 
bility surveys would not reduce aggregate woodland area 



Table Id 

MOUNTAINS 

COUNTY STATISTICS: TOTAL LAND, FOREST, AND NON-FOREST AREA 

County Gross Area Water Area Land Area Non-forest Area Forest Area % Forest Area 

Alleghany 147,200 147,200 95,386 51,814 35.2 

Ashe 273,280 273,280 182,004 91.276 1 33.4 

Avery 158,080 158,080 54,854 103,226 65.3 

Buncombe 414,080 640 413,440 140,156 273,284 66.1 

Burke 330,880 7,040 323,840 83,551 240,289 74.2 

Caldwell 307,200 2,560 304,640 84,081 220,559' 72.4 

Cherokee 298,880 298,880 62,880 236,000 2 79.0 

Clay 140,160 140,160 28,593 111,567 79.6 

Graham 191,360 2,560 188,800 15,900 172,900 2 91.6 

Haywood 348,160 640 347,520 97,220 250,300' 72.0. 

Henderson 244,480 244,480 99,014 145,466 59.5 

Jackson 319,360 319,360 66,108 253,252 79.3. 

McDowell 286,080 3,200 282,880 55,727 227,153 80.3 

Macon 332,800 332,800 63,565 269,235 80.9' 

Madison 291,840 291,840 117,040 174,800 2 60.0 

Mitchell 140,800 140,800 49,400 91,400 2 64.9 

Swain 348,160 348,160 37,360 310,800 2 89.3. 

Transylvania 242,560 242,560 35,656 206,904 85.3 

Watauga 204,800 204,800 104,448 100,352 49.0 

Wilkes 489,600 489,600 161,521 322,157 65.8 

Yancey 199,040 199,040 59,040 140,000* 70.3 

Regional Totals 5,708,800 16,640 5,692,160 1,693,504 3,998,656 70.2 

1. Sample counties in which new forest area figures were developed 3. All others are Forest Survey forest acreage figures corrected to 
by interpretation of aerial photographs. (N. C. Forest Resource Ap- the 1940 Census on a percentage basis. Original figures were obtained 
praisal). from Forest Survey Release No. 19. "Approximate Area and Timber 

2. Tennessee Valley Authority determinations of forest area based on Volumes by Counties in the Carolinas and Virginia." 
planimetric maps. 



( 



Table 2a 
COUNTY STATISTICS: LAND USE OF NON-FOREST AREA 

(ACRES) 
NORTH COASTAL PLAIN 



County Non-Forest Area Cultivated Idle Pasture Highway Other 

Beaufort 168,061 98,327 8,737 3,437 3,981 53,579 

Bertie 136,604 88,611 2,852 2,330 2,751 40,060 

Camden 60,572 35,140 1,692 1,366 989 21,385 

Carteret 87,163 15,286 2,154 677 1,549 67,497 

Chowan 67,968 35,653 680 1,356 1,042 29,237 

Craven 103,472 59,503 7,689 2,788 3,049 30,443 

Currituck 94,698 32,159 3,796 2,150 1,131 55,462 

Dare . . . ' 77,228 429 72 72 1,100 75,555 

Edgecombe 190,332 130,900 9,622 5,210 3,329 41,271 

Gates 57,953 40,397 4,140 1,980 1,751 9,685 

Halifax 222,723 154,597 12,501 8,541 3,717 43,367 

Hertford . v 82,706 53,972 3,770 1,198 1,945 21,821 

Hyde 102,657 34,125 2,770 3,067 1,258 61,437 

Martin 116,671 78,058 1,792 2,907 2,518 31,396 

Nash 205,256 136,312 7,712 4,110 4,276 52,846 

Northampton 171,418 121,297 8,063 4,504 2,585 34,969 

Pamlico 72,237 30,613 5,374 1,172 1,249 33,829 

Pasquotank 80,022 45,477 1,652 3,558 1,177 28,158 

Perquimans 70,658 46,479 1,226 1,672 1,263 20,018 

Pitt 225,874 155,317 4,345 5,047 4,861 56,304 

Tyrrell 41,879 17,384 1,053 732 952 21,758 

Washington 58,276 28,289 3,770 2,675 1,119 22,423 

Wilson 145,620 106,455 3,085 3,297 3,095 29,688 

Regional Totals 3,240,048 1,544,780 98,547 63,846 50,687 882,188 



Table 2b 
COUNTY STATISTICS: LAND USE OF NON-FOREST AREA 

(ACRES) 
SOUTH COASTAL PLAIN 



County Non-Forest Area 

Bladen 137,265 

Brunswick 86,602 

Columbus 129,206 

Cumberland 142,565 

Duplin 178,341 

Greene 98,820 

Harnett 149,706 

Hoke 87,437 

Johnston 275,770 

Jones 66,949 

Lee 61,363 

Lenoir 121,116 

Moore 108,810 

New Hanover 33,027 

Onslow 110,799 

Pender 83,369 

Richmond 123,869 

Robeson 277,309 

Sampson 248,377 

Scotland 90,079 

Wayne 179,376 

Regional Totals 2,790,155 



Cultivated 


Idle 


Pasture 


Highway 


Other 


70,738 


10,211 


4,483 


3,741 


48,092 


35,056 


6,265 


1,193 


2,799 


41,289 


108,218 


7,199 


4,609 


4,908 


4,272 


91,301 


11,440 


4,985 


3,572 


31,267 


135,292 


12,562 


8,299 


5,147 


17,041 


77,846 


2,134 


2,424 


2,113 


14,303 


116,025 


7,166 


2,774 


3,932 


19,809 


61,662 


7,576 


1,949 


1,930 


14,320 


199,939 


11,267 


7,226 


5,966 


51,372 


46,233 


5,877 


2,644 


1,419 


10,776 


33,646 


9,791 


4,667 


1,824 


11,435 


102,649 


5,658 


3,335 


3,344 


6,130 


53,914 


14,467 


5,988 


3,531 


30,910 


8,359 


3,253 


623 


996 


19,796 


47,550 


9,339 


2,233 


2,571 


49,106 


39,237 


14,664 


2,432 


2,888 


24,148 


55,584 


25,310 


6,745 


3,197 


33,033 


224,158 


12,164 


7,556 


6,718 


26,713 


169,907 


8,569 


4,335 


6,022 


59,544 


67,872 


8,408 


1,503 


2,195 


10,101 


146,946 


11,087 


7,702 


4,311 


9,330 



1,892,132 



204,407 



87,705 



73,124 



532,787 



(7) 



in the Mountains. In view of the long active gain of new- 
woods over new clearing, and the steady purchase of land 
for public forests, it is highly probable that the Mountains 
will have additional forest acreage in the future. 

COUNTY STATISTICS: UTILIZATION OF 
NON-FOREST LAND 

Table 2 contains estimates of the various non-forest uses 
of land. The agricultural land information was available 
from three main sources: the N. C. Crop Reporting Ser- 
vice (N. C. Department of Agriculture) , the Agricultural 
Adjustment Administration (USDA), and the 1940 Cen- 
sus. The first two are conceded to be more reliable than 
the third for this particular information, and they offer 
more recent data. 

N. C. Crop Reporting Service figures for 1944 are pre- 
sented here because they include estimates of idle land, 
which AAA does not. 



COUNTY STATISTICS: OWNERSHIP OF 
FOREST LAND 

County Table 3 and state summary Table 4 illustrate 
the breakdown of forest land ownership. Several categories 
could not be completely analyzed by counties, but their 
identity is made known in the footnotes. Ownership fig- 
ures do not remain static as forest lands are always chang- 
ing hands. 

Public forest reserves are represented by National and 
State Park lands upon which no timber cutting is con- 
templated. An additional 44,000 acres in Swain County 
will soon be added to the Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park. 

National Forest ownership is concentrated in the Moun- 
tain region. It can be expected that further land purchases 
will be made. National Forests are already established in 
the Coastal Plain and Piedmont. Expansion is possible in 
the coastal section, but doubtful in the Piedmont due to 
the lack of large unpopulated areas. 



COUNTY STATISTICS: 



Table 2c 
LAND USE OF NON-FOREST AREA 

(ACRES) 
PIEDMONT 



County Non-Forest Area Cultivated Idle Pasture Highway Other 

Alamance 153,324 85,887 21,801 20,061 3,883 21,692 

Alexander 84,084 44,882 10,864 13,456 2,176 12,706 

Anson 156,915 92,374 14,350 7,448 3,616 39,127 

Cabarrus 144,230 82,669 13,764 12,070 3,210 32,517 

Caswell 125,558 68,157 27,444 14,752 2,571 12,634 

Catawba 153,306 84,374 18,798 19,019 3,309 27,806 

Chatham 173,752 75,700 21,218 19,912 4,159 52,763 

Cleveland 198,926 142,620 12,761 16,116 4,681 22,748 

Davidson . . .': 188,687 97,303 24,637 19,234 5,046 42,466 

Davie 115,400 53,424 10,619 14,346 2,041 34,970 

Durham 72,525 30,731 11,770 4,667 2,756 22,601 

Forsyth 173,670 75,733 24,216 14,008 4,359 55,354 

Franklin 168,512 94,732 17,364 7,898 3,301 45,217 

Gaston 143,887 64,578 15,205 11,661 3,191 49,252 

Granville 145,263 74,560 15,884 14,899 3,275 36,645 

Guilford 236,235 109,591 30,795 24,646 6,313 64,887 

Iredell 242,830 139,286 23,342 32,290 5,386 42,526 

Lincoln 131,479 74,245 11,793 12,702 2,606 30,133 

Mecklenberg 196,334 96,536 21,049 24,876 4,511 49,362 

Montgomery 91,197 38,235 9,827 3,155 2,600 37,380 

Orange 102,397 51,318 15,017 12,718 3,099 20,246 

Person 112,640 71,898 8,872 9,910 2,661 19,299 

Polk 64,097 24,482 6,171 6,120 1,816 25,508 

Randolph 209,157 113,087 38,330 24,001 5,937 27,802 

Rockingham 199,880 93,208 19,889 23,824 4,398 58,561 

Rowan 244,190 116,177 15,751 17,744 4,273 90,245 

Rutherford 180,396 87,134 23,463 16,253 4,328 49,218 

Stanly 134,830 93,630 7,938 11,248 3,449 18,565 

Stokes 149,230 62,900 19,446 18,443 4,084 44,357 

Surry 164,623 83,565 14,515 26,215 3,875 36,453 

Union 284,772 154,852 15,538 29,840 5,369 79,173 

Vance 103,640 47,969 6,165 4,259 1,668 43,579 

Wake ... 244,420 134,351 26,708 15,248 6,696 61,417 

Warren 129,300 71,043 11,833 10,630 2,543 33,251 

Yadkin 120,278 72,572 12,093 16,353 2/700 17,560 

Regional Totals 5,539,964 2,903,803 599,230 550,022 129,886 1,358,020 



(8) 



COUNTY STATISTICS: 



Table 2d 
LAND USE OF NON-FOREST AREA 

(ACRES) 
MOUNTAINS 



County Non-Forest Area Cultivated 

Alleghany 95,386 20,731 

Ashe 182,004 38,484 

Avery 54,854 16,886 

Buncombe 140,156 52,941 

Burke 83,551 31,266 

Caldwell 84,081 34,950 

Cherokee 62,880 21,942 

Clay : 28,593 12,395 

Craham 15,900 5,626 

Haywood 97,220 28,728 

Henderson 99,014 35,419 

Jackson 66,108 19,136 

McDowell 55,727 17,633 

Macon 63,565 24,676 

Madison 117,040 37,092 

Mitchell 49,400 22,699 

Swain 37,360 6,527 

Transylvania 35,656 11,298 

Watauga 104,448 26,694 

Wilkes 161,521 69,165 

Yancey 59,040 27,228 

Regional Totals 1,693,504 561,516 

* This column reveals small discrepancies in estimates of agricultural 
land use. We believe this is caused by woodland pasture being counted 



Idle 



Pasture 



Highway 



Other 



3,324 


72,986 


2,239 


* 


8,136 


133,042 


3,537 


* 


6,567 


24,905 


1,493 


5,013 


32,506 


64,405 


5,646 


* 


12,070 


9,728 


3,058 


27,429 


10,296 


16,926 


2,802 


19,017 


9,609 


10,331 


2,215 


18,783 


2,612 


9,272 


1,004 


3,310 


2,453 


4,326 


1,031 


2,464 


9,332 


70,262 


2,415 


* 


7,566 


21,548 


3,020 


31,461 


5,383 


27,613 


2,546 


11,430 


5,934 


8,317 


2,308 


21,535 


10,438 


28,005 


2,671 


* 


15,632 


73,623 


3,006 


* 


9,715 


20,264 


1,239 


* 


3,914 


8,383 


1,571 


16,965 


4,662 


5,770 


2,165 


11,761 


5,819 


66,929 


2,365 


2,641 


39,420 


44,063 


5,623 


3,250 


11,132 


30,680 


1,567 


* 



216,520 



751,378 



53,521 



175,059 



twice ; once as woodland and again as pasture. 



Table 3a 

COUNTY STATISTICS: FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP 

(ACRES) 

NORTH COASTAL PLAIN 



_ Forest Area 

County (Acres) 

Beaufort 363,779 

Bertie 306,916 

Camden 92,388 

Carteret 253,317 

Chowan 47,232 

Craven 360,528 

Currituck 80,022 

Dare 171,092 

Edgecombe 136,708 

Gates. 161,567 

Halifax 239,357 

Hertford 145,134 

Hyde 303,103 

Martin 191,169 

Nash 148,024 

Northampton 174,182 

Pamlico 146,003 

Pasquotank 66,538 

Perquimans 96,382 

Pitt 193,966 

Tyrrell 213,481 

Washington 156,764 

Wilson 93,100 

Regional Totals 4,140,752 



Public Forest 
Reserve 



Commercial 
Forest Area 



National 
Forest 



Farm 
Woodland 



Other 



363,779 




118,985 


244,794 


306,916 




146,680 


160,236 


92,388 




24,698 


67,690 


253,317 


50,531 


34,622 


168,164 


47,232 




32,118 


15,114 


360,528 


46,367 


96,759 


217,402 


80,022 




33,570 


46,452 


171,092 




828 


170,264 


136,708 




123,179 


13,529 


161,567 




62,363 


99,204 


239,357 




149,441 


89,916 


145,134 




86,358 


58,776 


303,103 




23,483 


279,620 


191,169 




105,732 


85,437 


148,024 




132,111 


15,913 


174,182 




98,385 


75,797 


146,003 




32,700 


113,303 


66,538 




27,558 


38,980 


96,382 


' 


38,128 


58,254 


193,966 




127,966 


65,970 


213,481 




20,720 


102,761 


156,764 




24,392 


132,372 


93,100 




88,199 


4,901 



4,140,752 



96,898 



1,629,005 



2,414,489 



(9) 



State forests are represented by one area of approxi- 
mately 40,000 acres in Bladen County. Acquisition of land 
for state forests is urgently needed. If and when forest 
lands now operated by the War Department become un- 
necessary as military establishments, the state should 
make every effort to acquire these lands for state forests. 
This is an immediate concern. (Other means of acquiring 
state forests are discussed in another section.) 

Failure to acquire lands for state forests has seriously 
handicapped the forest conservation movement. Practically 
all states that have made their names stand out in the 
field of conservation own state forests or are busily acquir- 
ing them. Private owners should be encouraged to keep 
and develop forest lands where they want to, but in some 
sections of North Carolina, more public forests are indi- 
cated and seem to be locally desired. State forests can be 
small units and as such will fit the needs that exist today. 
"Underneath all, the land." Prestige for state conservation 
is lost if the land goes out of state sovereignty. State for- 
ests add stability to conservation work; are proving 
grounds for techniques; training grounds for personnel 
who are to assist private owners; useful for demonstra- 
tions ; strong "anchor points" which help private owners in 
fire control; and, finally, they will more than pay their 
way. 

Approximately one-half of the commercial forest acre- 
age of North Carolina is classified as farm woodland by 
the U. S. Census of 1940. These figures, as well as those 
from other sources, are only approximately correct. The 
error in acreage may be considerable, due to the methods 
of classifying farm woodland. For example, according to 
U. S. Census definitions, if a tract of 1500 acres had three 



acres of cultivated land and 1497 acres of forest, the forest 
area would be classified as farm woodland, although this 
area would not function as a farm woods and would not 
be managed as such. Regardless of the above classification,, 
the farm forest is one of the State's important assets. The 
majority of the farmers still do not appreciate the value of 
their woodlands, but progress is being made in farm for- 
estry, especially since 1943, when the state and federal 
governments began to put Farm Foresters into the coun- 
ties to help owners on the ground. 

There are approximately one and one-half million acres 
of forest land industrially owned in North Carolina. This 
figure was developed from the tax records of each of the 
100 counties. There was no way of determining the amount 
of forest land owned by small sawmill operators, who are 
not listed as timber companies in the tax records. 

With the possible exception of the pulp companies and 
a few progressive lumber companies, the wood-using in- 
dustries of North Carolina have not taken advantage of 
the timber growing possibilities of lands in this state. It 
has been said that lumber companies keep their "brains" 
in the office, and do not know much about the woods — other 
than how much timber there is, and how to get it out. 
Pulp companies have technically trained men in the woods 
and know growth possibilities. They have acquired, and 
are still acquiring, lands on which they intend to practice 
good forestry measures. 

Lumber companies in Alabama, Arkansas, and other 
Southern States have acquired lands and are making the 
practice of forestry a paying proposition. The question 
was asked, "Why have most companies failed to do so in 
this state, even though some have owned large tracts in 



Table 3b 

COUNTY STATISTICS: FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP 

(ACRES) 

SOUTH COASTAL PLAIN 



Forest Area 

County (Acres) 

Bladen 425,295 

Brunswick 472,118 

Columbus 471,754 

Cumberland 280,475 

Duplin 347,739 

Greene 73,340 

Harnett 238,134 

Hoke 177,523 

Johnston 233,030 

Jones 231,931 

Lee 101,837 

Lenoir 129,124 

Moore 321,270 

New Hanover 91,133 

Onslow 373,041 

Pender 465,111 

Richmond 191,411 

Robeson 326,851 

Sampson 367,943 

Scotland 112,801 

Wayne 175,824 

Regional Totals 5,607,685 

* Bladen Lakes State Forest. 



Public Forest 
Reserve 



Commercial 
Forest Area 



National 
Forest 



Farm 
Woodland 



Other 



500 1 



424,795 

472,118 
471,754 
280,475 
347,739 

73,340 
238,134 
177,523 
233,030 
231,931 
101,837 
129,124 
321,270 

91,133 
373,041 
465,111 
191,411 
326,851 
367,943 
112,801 
175,824 



500 



5,607,685 



40,000* 



28,989 



28,989 



150,635 


274,160 


124,353 


347,765 


179,080 


292,674 


111,773 


168,702 


166,456 


181,283 


48,810 


24,530 


119,075 


119,059 


58,746 


118,777 


184,696 


48,334 


57,495 


145,447 


61,621 


40,216 


82,710 


46,414 


140,516 


180,754 


11,926 


79,207 


97,568 


275,473 


78,412 


386,699 


77,259 


114,152 


146,966 


179,885 


214,475 


153,468 


33,619 


79,182 


103,516 


72,308 


2,249,707 


3,288,489 



(10) 



the past and others have had the opportunity to purchase 
lands in recent years?" Numerous contacts with the larg- 
er sawmills brought out the following reasons : 

1. Lack of capital. 

2. High fire risk. 

3. High taxes on forest land. 

4. Cheaper to buy stumpage than raise it. 

5. Lack of knowledge as to the timber growing possibil- 
ities. 

A few progressive lumber companies know that if they 
are to stay in business they must be concerned with the 
growing of their raw material. One progressive box and 
lumber company said, "Land purchases are imperative. 
We have been and are purchasing lands right along." 

Naturally, timber concerns located in counties checker- 
boarded with farms have little oportunity to acquire for- 
ests. Probably they will remain small organizations, and 
their timber requirements can be supplied permanently 
from the farms. Where farming is on a good permanent 



basis, farmers can be taught and assisted in timber farm- 
ing. The majority will eventually learn to do a good job 
just as they have learned and are applying good practices 
in tobacco, livestock, and other farming activities. 

The most favorable place for acquisition of timber lands 
by industry in in the big woods sections characterized by 
scattered or unstable farms and absentee owners. In many 
cases these woods are not in strong hands. If they have 
commercial timber growing possibilities, as in the majori- 
ty of cases, industry can help itself and serve the public 
interest by acquiring tracts and holding them to grow tim- 
ber crops. American forestry has made its greatest ad- 
vances in sections where industry has taken hold and 
shown the way. North Carolina forestry has suffered be- 
cause her timbermen have been slow to do this. Many now 
say they intend to get into the business. Woods areas 
away from good farms, and lacking the possibilities that 
would attract industry, would seem to be a field for pub- 
lic ownership. However, any individual who owns such 



Table 3c 

COUNTY STATISTICS: FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP 

(ACRES) 

PIEDMONT 



Forest Area 

County (Acres) 

Alamance 124,436 

Alexander 79,152 

Anson 184,205 

Cabarrus 86,170 

Caswell 152,842 

Catawba 106,534 

Chatham 278,728 

Cleveland 99,314 

Davidson 162,033 

Davie 53,560 

Durham 118,835 

Forsyth 97,690 

Franklin 147,648 

Gaston 85,233 

Granville 202,257 

Guilford 180,405 

Iredell 135,410 

Lincoln 65,641 

Mecklenburg 150,546 

Montgomery 221,123 

Orange 152,323 

Person 143,360 

Polk 85,663 

Randolph 303,483 

Rockingham 166,200 

Rowan 86,690 

Rutherford 181,844 

Stanly 120,530 

Stokes 144,530 

Surry 179,057 

Union 126,748 

Vance 68,520 

Wake 309,820 

Warren 155,500 

Yadkin 94,122 

Regional Totals 5,050,152 



Public Forest 
Reserve 



Commercial 
Forest Area 



National 
Forest 



Farm 
Woodland 



Other 



3,000' 

3,000' 

910 2 



3,500 a 



124,436 

79,152 
184,205 

86,170 
152,842 
106,534 
278,728 

99,314 
162,033 

53,560 
118,835 

97,690 
147,648 

85,233 
202,257 
180,405 
135,410 

65,641 
150,546 
221,123 
152,323 
143,360 

85,663 
303,483 
166,200 

86,690 
181;844 
117,530 
141,530 
178,147 
126,748 

68,520 
306,320 
155,500 

94,122 



677 



27,241 



8,137 



91,587 

73,687 

125,526 

63,194 

113,779 

81,978 

182,184 

71,827 

94,792 

52,442 

62,277 

88,615 

131,414 

56,591 

170,127 

137,551 

126,057 

55,104 

73,927 

88,450 

91,475 

128,521 

46,287 

219,521 

142,926 

83,472 

111,445 

91,443 

132,062 

142,274 

151,676 

83,540 

203,259 

113,389 

77,533 



32,849 

5,465 
58,679 
22,976 
39,063 
24,553 
96,544 
27,487 
66,564 

1,118 
56,558 

9,075 
16,234 
28,642 
32,130 
42,854 

9,353 
10,537 
76,619 
105,432 
60,848 
14,839 
39,376 
75,825 
23,274 

3,218 
70,399 
26,087 

9,468 
35,873 



103,061 
42,111 
16,589 



10,410 



5,039,742 



36,055 



3,759,932 



1,283,703 



(11) 



land, and wishes to keep it, should be helped to practice 
forestry. 

The six million acres of forest land not classified are 
mainly in private ownership. A large portion of this land 
is owned by investment type owners such as insurance 
companies, banks, individuals, estates, and hunting clubs. 



THE SUPPLY OF SAWTIMBER 

The supply of sawtimber was inventoried during the 
spring of 1945, in 21 counties, which are believed to repre- 
sent the general range of conditions throughout North 
Carolina. 



Table 3d 

COUNTY STATISTICS: FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP 

(ACRES) 

MOUNTAINS 

Forest Area Public Forest Commercial National Farm Other 

County (Acres) Reserve Forest Area Forest Woodland 

Alleghany 51,814 4,228 2 47,586 34,946 12,640 

Ashe 91,276 1,138 2 90,138 327 71,287 18,254 

Avery 103,226 1,233 2 101,993 22,134 46,862 32,997 

Buncombe 273,284 1,652 2 271,941 30,941 108,892 131,779 

Burke 240,289 243 2 240,046 46,915 85,993 107,138 

Caldwell 220,559 220,559 49,142 109,051 62,366 

Cherokee 236,000 236,000 60,022 91,563 84,345 

Clay 111,567 111,567 52,073 29,729 29,765 

Graham 172,900 3,800 s 169,100 57,672 27,171 84,257 

Haywood 250,300 59,889* 190,411 63,291 53,156 73,964 

Henderson 145,466 145,466 18,635 53,212 73,619 

Jackson 253,252 528 2 252,724 18,659 84,238 149,827 

McDowell 227,153 885 2 226,268 58,929 46,077 121,262 

Macon 269,235 269,235 144,309 60,447 64,479 

Madison 174,800 174,800 46,189 88,630 39,981 

Mitchell 91,400 563 2 90,837 15,122 34,982 40,733 

Swain 310,800 168,961* 141,839 5,616 59,647 76,576 

Transylvania 206,904 206,904 81,626 35,904 89,374 

Watauga 100,352 980 2 99,372 393 63,870 35,109 

Wilkes 328,079 4,699* 323,380 197,229 126,151 

Yancey 140,000 1,178* 138,822 31,849 71,757 35,216 

Regional Totals 3,998,656 249,977 3,748,679 803,824 1,454,733 1,490,122 

1 N. C. State Parks. Park and 651 acres in the Blue Ridge Parkway. Does not include 44,400 

2 Blue Ridge Parkway. acres being acquired for National Park Service. 

3 Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest. Nantahala National Forest. * Wilkes : includes 100 acres in N. C. State Park and 4,599 acres in 

* Haywood : includes 59,535 acres in the Great Smoky Mountain Na- Blue Ridge Parkway. 

tional Park and 354 acres in the Blue Ridge Parkway. * Yancey: includes 800 acres in N. C. State Park and 378 acres in 

* Swain: includes 168,310 acres in Great Smoky Mountain National Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Table 4 
STATE SUMMARY OF FOREST OWNERSHIP 



Region 



Gross 
Forest 
Area 



Public 1 Commercial National Other 2 

Reserve Forest Area Forests Federal 



State 3 
Farm Municipal 

Woodland County 



Industrial 



Other 



North 
Coastal 
Plain 4,140,752 

South 
Coastal 
Plain 5,607,685 



4,140,752 96,898 



1,629,005 



869,558 



500 



5,607,185 28,989 



2,249,707 



370,074 



Piedmont 


5,050,152 


10,410 


5,039,742 


36,055 




3,759,932 




95,755 




Mountains 


3,998,656 


249,977 


3,748,679 


803,829 




1,454,733 




208,504 




State Total 


18,797,245 


260,887 


18,536,358 


965,766 


396,594 


9,093,377 


270,557 


1,543,911 


6,266,153 



1 Includes state parks 10,910 acres 

2 Soil Conservation Service 12,276 acres 

Farm Security Administration 13,730 acres 

Fish and Wildlife Service 58,500 acres 

Indian Service 48,088 acres 

Navy Department 90,000 acres 

War Department 125,000 acres 

Tennessee Valley Authority (includes 44,000 being 



purchased for National Park Service) 49,000 acres 

3 State Forest 40,000 acres 

Game Refuges & Farms 80,645 acres 

Forest School 81,590 acrea 

Other Colleges — -Agr. Exp. Stations 2,300 acres 

Prison Farms 6,226 acres 

Hospitals 3,700 acres. 

County and Municipal 56,096 acres. 



(12) 



Figure 1 will show that a somewhat heavier sample was 
taken in the Eastern half of the state. Shortage of time 
iorced a reduced sample in the Piedmont and Mountains. 
Although a higher proportion of counties was included in 
the Mountains than in the Piedmont, fewer plots were 
taken in each county, so that the two regions have about 
the same intensity of sampling. Separate estimates of vol- 
ume are worked up for the four units, so differences in the 
degree of sampling do not affect the over-all picture. 

More detailed information regarding sawtimber esti- 
mates and trends for each of the four sections of the state 
are shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7. 

The 21 sample counties included 4,874,000 acres of for- 
est land, or 23.6 per cent of the state total. Using average 
volumes per acre from the county inventories to arrive 
first at regional estimates, and from these to arrive at a 
state estimate, North Carolina's 18,536,000 acres of com- 
mercial forest were found to contain 41,121,000,000 board 
feet of sawlog-size timber. 

Pines totalled 25,245,000,000 board feet, hardwoods and 
•cypress 15,876,000,000 board feet. 

Appraisal Findings Indicate Sawtimber Supply Declined 
During the War Period. Southern Forests were called upon 
to provide enormous quantities of lumber, pulpwood, and 
other timber material during the war years. The idea is 
generally accepted that sawtimber growing stock has been 
depleted. Since the felling, sawing, and hauling of timber 



is a much more evident happening than the imperceptible 
yearly renewal by tree growth, the consensus of public 
opinion appears to be that the forests are disappearing. 

This is not the case in North Carolina, despite the war- 
time requisitions. The state had a thorough timber inven- 
tory in 1937-38 — the first cruise in its history by the U. S. 
Forest Survey. Therefore, comparison can be made be- 
tween the first and second inventories to get an idea of 
the general changes that may have been in progress dur- 
ing the eight-year interval. Specifications regarding tree 
sizes and conditions are the same for one inventory as for 
the other. No timber cruise is completely accurate, but 
where the field of sampling is broad, including many mil- 
lions of acres and billions of board feet, probability of 
sampling error is reduced. A substantial difference in fig- 
ures thus would be an indication of trends. 

The Forest Resource Appraisal estimate of total saw- 
timber stand is 6.1 per cent less than the Forest Survey 
inventory in 1937 and 1938; the pine estimate is 12 per 
cent lower, while hardwood is unchanged. The percentages 
are obtained by comparisons with 1938 Forest Survey esti- 
mates for the same 21 counties as sampled by the Ap- 
praisal. 

Appraisal estimates of pine sawtimber are lower for 
the Northern Coastal Plain, the Southern Coastal Plain, 
the Piedmont, and Mountain Units, being — 13 per cent, 
— 5 per cent, — 18 per cent and — 11 per cent, respectively. 



Table 5 
ESTIMATED SAWTIMBER VOLUMES FOR 21 SAMPLE COUNTIES 



County 



Commercial 
Forest Acres 



Total Volume 

M Board Feet 

Pine Hardwood 



Average Volume Per Acre 
Board Feet 
Pine Hardwood 



Total 



Beaufort 363,779 

Bertie 306,916 

Currituck 80,022 

Halifax 239,357 

Tyrrell 213,481 

Bladen 424,795 

Harnett 238,134 

Jones 231,931 

Pender 465,111 

Richmond 191,411 

Wayne 175,824 

Caswell 152,842 

Gaston 85,233 

Randolph 303,483 

Wake 306,320 

Yadkin 94,122 

Ashe 90,138 

Buncombe 271,632 

Caldwell 220,551 

Graham 169,100 

Jackson 252,724 

* Some present, but none on plots tallied. 



NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 



612,698 


324,127 


1,685 


891 


2,576 


1,031,851 


618,436 


3,362 


2,015 


5,377 


172,928 


125,074 


2,161 


1,563 


3,724 


337,733 


383,210 


1,411 


1,601 


3,012 


376,154 


132,358 


1,762 


620 


2,382 


SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 








419,697 


313,499 


988 


738 


1,726 


300,287 


121,686 


1,261 


511 


1,772 


397,066 


83,031 


1,712 


358 


2,070 


480,460 


155,812 


1,033 


335 


1,368 


261,850 


69,291 


1,368 


362 


1,730 


466,461 


50,813 


2,653 


289 


2,942 


PIEDMONT 










186,926 


74,281 


1,223 


486 


1,709 


130,747 


68,016 


1,534 


798 


2,332 


157,811 


221,543 


520 


730 


1,250 


598,856 


211,667 


1,955 


691 


2,646 


134,500 


91,299 


1,429 


970 


2,399 


MOUNTAINS 










* 


109,518 


* 


1,215 


1,215 


264,298 


330,033 


973 


1,215 


2,188 


313,844 


157,694 


1,423 


715 


2,138 


41,091 


224,227 


243 


1,326 


1,569 


58,379 


327,025 


231 


1,294 


1,525 



(13) 



For hardwood sawtimber, the 1945 estimates are higher 
for the Northern Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, and the 
Mountains, being +6 per cent, +7 per cent, and +8, per 
cent, respectively. The Southern Coastal Plain shows an 
unaccountably lower estimate of hardwood, — 26 per cent 
less than the 1938 estimate which is out of line with other 
indicated trends. It is possible that either one or the other 
of the two inventories may have failed to obtain a repre- 
sentative sample of the hardwood volume in the particular 
six counties sampled in this unit. 

Sawtimber volumes are low in the Mountain region. 
This is due, as elsewhere, to cutting, but another factor is 
worth mentioning. Thirty years ago, the Chestnut Blight 
was introduced into this country and has since killed all 
the chestnut. Formerly, about % of the timber volume 
was chestnut, but none is represented in Appraisal vol- 
umes. 

Survey findings indicate that pine sawtimber volumes 
are almost 12 per cent less than eight years ago, while 
hardwood volumes remain about the same as they were in 
1938. Since pine has produced the greatest volume and 



best quality, especially for construction material, this 
change in composition can be regarded as the worst fea- 
ture in present trends. Another trend that should cause 
concern is the decrease in number of operable stands, i. e., 
individual stands containing at least 50 M. bd. ft. Present 
pine sawtimber stands are becoming more and more scat- 
tered, thus, harvesting becomes more expensive. 

Present findings indicate also an increase ih the propor- 
tion of oak in the Coastal Plain. Few timbermen have a 
kind word for Coastal Plain oak. It is known that the lim- 
ited stands of virgin hardwoods in the Mountains and 
Coastal Plain are decreasing in extent. There is no reason 
for saving them, but the proportion of high grade hard- 
wood is naturally reduced by their passing. 

War-time cutting has helped some hardwood stands* 
Low-grade and previously non-salable trees that other- 
wise might never have been cut have been utilized. 

SAWTIMBER SUITABLE FOR POLES AND PILING 

Trees suitable for poles and piling represent quality 
pine timber, not only from the standpoint of the higher 



Table 6 
ESTIMATED SAWTIMBER VOLUMES OF REGIONS OF N. C. 

Region, or Total Total Volume — M. Board Feet 

Survey Unit Commercial 

(see map page) Forest Acres Pine Hardwood 

NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 

(23 counties) 4,140,752 8,704,000 5,445,000 

SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 

(21 counties) 5,607,185 7,548,000 2,580,000 

PIEDMONT 

(35 counties) 5,039,742 6,466,000 3,563,000 

MOUNTAINS 

(21 counties) 3,748,679 2,527,000 4,288,000 

STATE 

(100 counties) 18,536,358 25,245,000 15,876,000 



Total 



14,149,000 



10,128,000 



10,029,000 



6,815,000 



41,121,000 



Table 7 
COMPARISON OF SAWTIMBER ESTIMATES, 
1938 AND 1945 
(1938 Estimate by U. S. Forest Survey; 1945 Estimate by 
Forest Resource Appraisal. Both estimates are based on 
their respective data from the same twenty-one sample 
counties.) 



NORTHERN 

COASTAL 

PLAIN 



SOUTHERN 

COASTAL 

PLAIN 



PIEDMONT 



MOUNTAINS 



STATE 



PINE 

F. R. Appr. (1945) 

Forest Survey (1938) 

HARDWOODS 

F. R. Appr. (1945) 

Forest Survey (1938) 

TOTAL: PINE AND 
HARDWOODS 

F. R. Appr. (1945) 

Forest Survey (1938) 

PER CENT THAT 1945 
ESTIMATE DIFFERS 
FROM 1938 ESTIMATE 



Average 


Volume Per Acre — Board 


Feet 






2,102 
2,409 


1,346 
1,417 


1,283 

1,541 


674 
762 


1,362 
1,531 


1,315 
1,220 


460 
637 


707 
658 


1,144 
1,061 


857 
833 


3,417 
3,624 


1,806 
2,054 


1,990 
2,199 


1,818 
1,823 


2,219 
2,364 



—5.8 



—12.1 



—9.5 



—0.3 



—6.1 



(14) 



25-35 ft 


Lengths 

40 ft. or over 




M. Pieces 


798 


215 


763 


1,007 


13 


90 


100 


207 


160 


183 



prices paid for these products, but also because they 
would produce the better grades of lumber if cut for that 
purpose. A count of trees suitable for poles or piling, 25 
feet in length or longer, was made. Results are shown in 
Table 8. This table indicates that many of the pine trees 
in our present stands are straight and clean, and the pro- 
portion appears to be as high as in other years. 

Many of the trees suitable for poles and piling are so 
widely scattered that it would be impractical for buyers 
to collect them. Lack of markets or knowledge will, in 
other cases, cause a large share of these well-formed trees 
to be used for lumber or pulpwood. 

Table 8 
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POLES AND PILING FOR 
SAMPLE COUNTIES AND FOR REGIONS— PINE 



County & Region 



Beaufort 

Bertie 

Currituck 

Halifax 

Tyrrell 

Total For 23 Counties of 

N. Coastal Plain 6,386 

Bladen 424 

Harnett 240 

Jones 239 

Pender 451 

Richmond 273 

Wayne 1,097 

Total for 21 Counties of 

S. Coastal Plain 8,837 

Caswell 169 

Gaston 134 

Randolph 232 

Wake 898 

Yadkin 221 

Total For 35 Counties of 

Piedmont 8,771 

Buncombe 162 

Caldwell 153 

Total for 21 Counties of 

Mountains 1,162 

State Total— 100 counties 25,156 

* None tallied in sample. 



5,790 

80 

85 

41 

170 

946 



4,253 

* 
12 
18 

373 
13 



2,268 



* 
12,311 



THE SUPPLY OF TIMBER BELOW 
SAWTIMBER SIZE 

The great majority of trees are not of sawlog size. All 
sound and reasonably straight trees, 6"-8" d.b.h. for soft- 
woods, and 6"-12" d.b.h. for hardwoods, are classed as 
■"sound under-sawlog-size." 

This material was considered potential sawtimber, if the 
individual stem was properly spaced of desirable species 
and of good enough promise to grow into a sawlog tree. A 
maple, a scrubby oak, or bay tree, even though sufficiently 



sound and straight to meet specifications, was not count- 
ed if it were judged to be on a too dry or too poor site to 
grow into sawtimber. Dogwood and other understory trees 
were not counted. For this reason, Appraisal estimates of 
hardwood under-sawlog size volume are believed to be con- 
servative, particularly in the Coastal Plain where the 
small hardwoods often present varied and puzzling condi- 
tions that increase the burden on an appraiser's judgment. 

The quantity of under-sawlog size material indicates the 
extent to which present sawtimber volumes will be aug- 
mented in the next 10 to 20 years. For example, Bertie, 
Wake, Yadkin, and Randolph show an increase in the vol- 
ume of this class. This means more timber to support cut- 
ting in future years. 

Table 11 compares Appraisal findings with those from 
the inventory made by the U. S. Forest Survey in 1937. 
Appraisal cruising and aerial photo-reading were designed 
primarily to estimate sawtimber. Estimates of under-saw- 
log may not be as accurate, but a wide difference when 
compared with the earlier survey probably denotes a 
trend — except in one case. The Appraisal shows a lower 
hardwood volume for the Coastal Plain units. It appears 
that the Appraisal specifications for the hardwoods were 
slightly different and tended to exclude some minor types 
that were counted by the Forest Survey, thus tending to 
make the Appraisal figures more conservative. No reason 
can be seen for a decline in under sawlog-size hardwood 
volume in the Coastal Plain as cutting in this class has not 
increased and fires are no worse than in former years. 

The comparison does indicate a slight increase in hard- 
wood volumes in the Piedmont and Mountain regions. This 
is believed to reflect a definite trend. Differences between 
the two inventories indicate an increase in small pine tim- 
ber in the Southeastern Coastal Plain and the Piedmont. 

A gain in under-sawlog pine volumes in the Southern 
Coastal Plain can probably be ascribed to the fact that this 
unit had been rather thoroughly cut-over at the time of the 
1937 inventory. It still is, of course, but cut-over stands 
have a tendency to grow back. By 1945 added numbers of 
trees on the great stretches of cut-over land were big 
enough to be counted. 

It should be pointed out that the under-sawlog size 
volume of this unit is still the lightest of any unit. The 
sawtimber volume is also light. Considering its rich po- 
tentialities for growing big crops of pine timber, the 
Southern Coastal Plain unit is in worse shape than the 
other three regions. Not only does it have less timber of 
all sizes, but later figures will show it has more forest 
fires. Cutting is close; fires are bad. 

Most counties in this unit have another condition that 
complicates the timber growing problem: they have big 
areas of poor sand ridges where oaks and other hard- 
woods prove miserable failures for commercial timber. 
The Sandhills come to mind; however, Bladen, Wayne, 
and other counties in this region also have poor sand 
stretches. That is one reason the volumes of under-sawlog 
hardwoods for the unit are only half as good as other units. 
Hardwoods on these poor sites are sparse, scrubby, and 
largely unpromising as timber trees. In other words, these 
areas must grow pine or go unproductive. 

The pine under-sawlog stand is also light, considering 
the fact that woods cut over years ago should eventually 
show re-establishment of the small trees. Forest fires 



(15) 



which continually destroy small trees by the million, must 
be counted as one of the main causes. Another cause of 
understocking — one that is gradually becoming more ser- 
ious — is the frequent lack of pine seed trees on cut-over 
lands. 

While under-sawlog size volume is light in this unit, one 
favorable feature is the way the proportion of pine repro- 
duction continues to maintain itself on forest lands that 
are not of "old field" origin in the sample counties of the 
South Coastal Plain. 

Piedmont temporarily gains in under-sawlog pine. The 
Piedmont unit also shows an increase in under-sawlog 
pine. This is a temporary condition. It is apparent that 
pine is to be succeeded by hardwoods in this region. This 
trend is written in the laws of nature, and no one can be 
blamed for it, although it may be pointed out that the 
trend is being hastened by heavy cutting of pine and light 
cutting of hardwoods. Hardwoods grow up under pines 
and eventually take over the ground. The climax type is 
hardwoods; establishment of pine stands is due to hap- 
penings which temporarily upset the natural scheme of 
plant succession. An opening is created by an unnatural 
disturbance. From scattered pines that have always been 
present on dry ridges, if nowhere else, winged seeds invade 
and stock the opening. 

If the land "belongs" to hardwoods, why does the Pied- 



mont now have more pine than hardwood in both sawlog 
and undersawlog categories? The answer is: land clearing 
and abandonment. At least half of the Piedmont forest has 
been under the plow at one time or another during the last 
150 years. High-yielding stands of pine grew up in the 
fields that were constantly being abandoned. By the time 
earlier old field stands have been cut one, two, or three 
times, the oaks, hickories, and other hardwoods have taken 
possession. A number of central Piedmont counties are 
well along the road to the hardwood climax. Of those 
sampled by the appraisal, Randolph is the best example. 
It had only 1% cords of under-sawlog pine per average 
acre. The bulk of this volume was concentrated in younger 
old field pine stands. Stands of hardwood, almost devoid of 
pine, occupy most of the land now. On the ground, under 
many hardwood stands, are found rotted pine stumps, 
stump holes, and old pine knots which have resisted decay 
after fallen pine trees have moldered back to earth. Pine 
stands once occupied this land. 

WAKE COUNTY— AN ABANDONED COTTON FIELD 

A glance at Table 9 shows more under-sawlog pine in 
Wake County than any other Piedmont County — or any 
other county in the state. Wake County represents sec- 
tions of the Piedmont where cotton and corn growing have 
been almost completely discontinued in recent decades. Old 



Table 9 

ESTIMATED VOLUME IN SOUND UNDER-SAWLOG-SIZE TREES 

FOR 21 SAMPLE COUNTIES 



County 



Commercial 
Forest Acres 



Total Volume 
M Cords 



Pine 

6"-8" 



Hardwood 
6"-12" 



Pine 
6"-8" 



Average Volume Per Acre 

Cords 

Hardwood 

6"-12" 



Total 



NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 



Beaufort 363,779 

Bertie 306,916 

Currituck 80,022 

Halifax 239,357 

Tyrrell 213,481 

Bladen 424,795 

Harnett 238,134 

Jones 231,931 

Pender 465,111 

Richmond 191,411 

Wayne 175,824 

Caswell 152,842 

Gaston 85,233 

Randolph 303,483 

Wake 306,320 

Yadkin 94,122 

Ashe 90,138 

Buncombe 271,632 

Caldwell 220,551 

Graham 169,100 

Jackson 252,724 



520 


677 


1.43 


1.86 


3.29 


752 


1,228 


2.45 


4.00 


6.45 


69 


285 


.86 


3.56 


4.42 


395 


601 


1.65 


2.51 


4.16 


386 


557 


1.81 


2.61 


4.42 


SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 








981 


603 


2.31 


1.42 


3.73 


317 


538 


1.33 


2.26 


3.59 


471 


220 


2.03 


.95 


2.98 


912 


721 


1.96 


1.55 


3.51 


362 


331 


1.89 


1.73 


3.62 


295 


229 


1.68 


1.30 


2.98 


PIEDMONT 










411 


449 


2.69 


2.94 


5.63 


162 


216 


1.90 


2.54 


4.44 


498 


1,417 


1.64 


4.67 


6.31 


1,608 


806 


5.25 


2.63 


7.88 


326 


390 


3.47 


4.14 


7.61 


MOUNTAINS 










7 


332 


.08 


3.68 


3.76 


242 


902 


.89 


3.32 


4.21 


311 


655 


1.41 


2.97 


4.38 


78 


680 


.46 


4.02 


4.48 


124 


801 


.49 


3.17 


3.66 



(16) 



field pine stands are everywhere. Many of them date back 
to the big collapse of cotton prices following World War I, 
the arrival of the boll weevil, and the prosperous '20's 
when Negro tenants left the farm in droves to seek city 
jobs. Since a large proportion of Wake's old-field stands 
are young, the under-sawlog pine figures would naturally 
reflect the bulk of their volume. Aerial photo-interpreta- 
tion showed more than one-third of Wake County to be 
occupied by young old-field pine, averaging about 10 cords 
per acre of under-sawlog volume. These are the stands 
that will produce high yields of sawtimber in the future. 

If the agricultural practices of a county still features 
the cycle of land clearing and abandonment, that county 
will continue to have stands of pine. Apparently, if the 
sample counties are representative, the cycle is still active 
enough in the Piedmont to keep up the volume of under- 
sawlog-size pine. However, farm leaders are successfully 
working to end this primitive type of farming. Soil con- 
Table 10. 
ESTIMATED VOLUME IN SOUND UNDER- 
SAWLOG-SIZE TREES 

Region, or Survey Total Total Volume — M. Cords 

Unit (See map Commercial Pine Hardwood Total 

page vii Forest Acres 6"-8" 6"-12" 

Northern Coastal Plain 

(23 counties) 4,140,752 7,288 11,511 18,799 

Southern Coastal Plain 

(21 counties) 5,607,185 10,822 8,579 19,401 

Piedmont 

(35 counties) 5,039,742 16,078 17,539 33,617 

Mountains 

(21 counties) 3,748,679 2,849 12,597 15,446 

State 

(100 counties) 18,536,358 37,037 50,226 87,263 



servation practices will enable good lands to stay pro- 
ductive, so they will not be abandoned; therefore, this 
time-honored cycle cannot be depended upon indefinitely to 
renew the source of pine timber. Whether foresters can 
develop practical means of keeping pine in the Piedmont 
remains to be seen. Probably it can be done if land owners 
can be persuaded to expend the necessary effort. 

Forestry in Yadkin County deserves special comment. 
This county possessed the second highest under-sawlog- 
size pine volume per acre in the state. In Wake, the big 
land abandonment movement occurred some years ago; in 
Yadkin it seems to be on a perpetual basis. The county is 
packed with small farms, each of which grows a few acres 
of tobacco. Not having much smooth land, owners have to 
cultivate up-and-down land; and, so far, terracing and 
contour plowing have not been adopted very widely. Con- 
sequently, land soon erodes and becomes unsuitable for to- 
bacco culture. Farmers abandon old fields as they clear 
new ones, and the annual "turnover" is about 2 per cent 
of the land. 

This system may not be the best farming, but the county 
is more successful than any other sampled in the matter 
of permanently maintaining pine stands. If this kind of 
tobacco farming keeps up, Yadkin will have plenty of pine 
in future years, and its stands will yield high above the 
average. 

(Note: Throughout this report, whenever a "sample" 
county is discussed, it should be kept in mind that the sam- 
ple illustrates conditions in several other counties in the 
section.) 

OTHER MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR 
CORDWOOD USE 

After sawlogs are cut from a tree, wood usuable for 
fuel or pulp remains in the upper-stem, or top. Upper- 
stem material below four inches in diameter was not 
counted. 

Table 12 shows the volume, in cords, of all sound trees 
over five inches d.b.h., except that upper-stem and limbs 



Table 11. 
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES OF SOUND UNDER-SAWLOG-SIZE VOLUMES, 

1938 AND 1945 

(1938 Estimate by U. S. Forest Survey; 1945 Estimate by Forest Resource Appraisal. 

Both estimates are based on their respective data from the same 

twenty-one sample counties.) 



Northern 
Coastal 
Plain 



Southern 
Coastal 
Plain 



Piedmont 



Mountains 



State 



Average Volume Per Acre — Standard Cords 



Pine 




F. R. Appr. (1945) 


1.76 


Forest Survey (1938) 


1.69 


Hardwoods 




F. R. Appr. (1945) 


2.78 


Forest Survey (1938) 


3.29 


Total: Pine and Hardwoods 




F. R. Appr. (1945) 


4.54 


Forest Survey (1938) 


4.98 


Per Cent That 1945 Estimate 




Differs from 1938 Estimate . . 


—8.8 



1.93 


3.19 


.76 


2.00 


1.29 


2.47 


.92 


1.58 


1.53 


3.48 


3.36 


2.71 


1.98 


3.32 


2.82 


2.63 


3.46 


6.67 


4.12 


4.71 


3.27 


5.79 


3.74 


4.21 



+5.8 



+15.1 



+10.1 



+11.9 



(17) 



of hardwood sawtimber are not included. Table 13 shows 
the grand total of all sound wood material including that 
in culls, upper-stem, and limbs of hardwood sawtimber. 

Table 12 shows an interesting fact: Its final total figure 
of 201 million cords varies less than 2 per cent from the 
estimate made by the Forest Survey eight years ago. This 
seems to bear out an important point, namely, that the 
total volume of wood material may remain constant, or 
even increase, although sawtimber declines materially. 
Pine sawtimber is 12 per cent less by this inventory, when 
compared with the one eight years earlier, although the 
overall wood volume seems to be about the same. 



Further comparisons with the 1938 survey, always re- 
stricted to the same 21 sample counties, show very small 
differences by regions. Coastal Plain Units are about 5 per 
cent lower by the Appraisal; the other regions are a little 
higher. 

With regard to upper-stem cordwood volumes, the ten- 
dency has been for pulpmills to use increasing amounts of 
the pine tops following operations of sawmills. Farmers 
cut topwood for tobacco curing and other home fuel use 
where the logged areas are near the farm, and accessible. 
Unfortunately, however, the bulk of such material goes 
unused. 



Table 12 

VOLUME OF ALL SOUND TREES, IN CORDS 

(Does not include sound material in cull trees, nor the upper stem and limbs of 

hardwood sawtimber.) 



North 

Coastal 

Plain 



PINE 

Sawlog material 20,124 

Upper stems sawlog trees 4,182 

Trees under sawlog size 7,288 

TOTAL PINE 31,594 

HARDWOODS 

Sawlog material 13,830 

Trees under sawlog size 11,511 

TOTAL HARDWOOD 25,342 

TOTALS 56,935 

Average Cordwood Volume 

Per Acre 13.75 



South 

Coastal 

Plain 



Piedmont 



(M Cords) 



31,907 

6,561 
8,579 



15,140 
47,047 



8.39 



35,281 

9,072 
17,539 



26,611 
61,892 



12.28 



Mountains 



10,160 

12,297 
12,597 



24,894 
35,054 



9.45 



State 



17,440 


15,473 


5,886 


58,923 


3,645 


3,730 


1,425 


12,982 


10,822 


16,078 


2,849 


37,037 



108,942 

41,760 
50,226 



91,986 
200,928 



10.84 



Table 13 

TOTAL VOLUME IN CORDS, FROM ALL SOURCES 

(Includes all sound trees over 5" d.b.h., upper stems and limbs of hardwood sawtimber, 

and sound material in cull trees.) 



North South 

Coastal Coastal Piedmont Mountains State 

Plain Plain 

' " (M Cords) 

TOTAL VOLUME 
ALL SOUND TREES 
(from Table 12) 56,935 47,047 61,892 35,054 200,928 

UPPER STEMS & LIMBS 
OF HARDWOOD 
SAWTIMBER 6,670 3,302 4,696 5,008 19,676 

TOTAL 63,605 50,349 66,588 40,062 220,604 

SOUND MATERIAL 
CONTAINED IN CULL 
TREES IN 1938* 10,240 9,438 8,715 9,329 37,722 

TOTAL 257 ' 863 

* From U. S. Forest Survey, 1938. It seems unlikely that amount of t -„„ + „j +„ u Q n 710 onn ™ r A* ,-t, 1<m Tho atnnimt 

cull has diminished. Cull material is nearly 90% hardwood. upper stems was estimated to he 11,719,900 cords m 1938. The amount 

Above figures do not include any chestnut. Dead chestnut, including has diminished considerably through cutting and decay. 

(18) 



SUPPLY OF PULPWOOD 

It may be desired to arrive at pulpwood figures from the 
various tables given, some of which are in board feet and 
others in standard cords. 

Volume of sawtimber trees is expressed in board feet. 
Pine trees having a thousand board feet of lumber will 
yield approximately 2 % cords of pulpwood, if the upper- 
stem is utilized. An interested person can make his own 
estimate as to the proportion of sawlog volume that is in 
trees of suitable size for pulpwood. For example, Harnett 
County is estimated to have 300 million feet of pine saw- 
timber (Table 5). If the assumption is made that 40 per 
cent of this volume, or 120 million board feet is in di- 
ameters suitable for pulpwood, and 1 M board feet will 
produce 2 % cords, the material suitable for this purpose 
would amount to 330,000 cords. This does not include ma- 
terial below 8 inches, d.b.h. 

The under-sawlog-size pine volume in Harnett County 
(Table 9) is 316,000 cords: Theoretically, all this material 
might be suitable for pulpwood. The total pine pulpwood 
supply for Harnett County is thus figured at 646,000 
cords. All this material may not be available, due to inac- 
cessibility and scattered condition of individual trees, but 
comparison may be made with other counties. 

Hardwoods are being used increasingly for pulp, but the 
present supply far exceeds the demand. Under-sawlog-size 
hardwood volume represents trees 6"-12" d.b.h. This is 
only slightly less than the range of pulpwood size under 
present usage. Harnett has a total hardwood under-sawlog 
volume of 538,000 cords, to which can be added the sound 
wood in rough hardwood culls. 

Table 13 adds the cordwood in culls and tops of saw- 
timber hardwoods to Table 12. The upper-stem and limbs 
of hardwoods are not being used commercially at present, 
and may be considered as additional cull material. 

THE CULL PROBLEM 

Cull tree volume is nearly 90 per cent hardwood, and 
North Carolina has the astounding total of nearly 40 mil- 
lion cords of this material. These unwanted trees could sus- 
tain pulp, fibreboard, or chemical wood industries if the 
sound wood could be brought out of the forest in a practi- 
cal way, and if the industries needed it and were adapted 
to processing it. 

Many people, in times past, have called for industries to 
use hardwood culls, topwood, low-grade, and mill waste. 
One authority recently made this statement, "Markets for 
non-sawtimber hardwoods is the most urgent single meas- 
ure needed for improving the value of North Carolina's 
timber stand." 

So long as wood is abundant, intensified utilization 
should" not be expected. This holds true, even in the rela- 
tively short period of American lumbering. First, the lum- 
bermen were interested only in the big clear logs ; over the 
years, they have lowered their demands until today they 
will take knotty pine tops and formerly-despised species. 
Ten years ago, many Southern pulp mills would take only 
pine; later they accepted gum, and now some are begin- 
ning to take oak. As timber of the desired kinds decreases, 
industry learns to use other kinds. It becomes less waste- 
ful. Forestry does not begin until scarcity arrives. 

Decline of sawtimber volume and of pine may be a par- 
tial blessing if it means the utilization of all kinds of 



hardwood material. Why not encourage the same result, 
without allowing sources of pine seed to become badly de- 
pleted, by establishing the requirement that a certain 
number of pine seed trees be left per acre 

Where are the culls? Culls were counted by size classes 
in each sample county. No volume determinations were 
made for individual trees. On a per-acre basis, Bertie, Cur- 
rituck, Halifax, Gaston, Randolph, Buncombe, and Jack- 
son led among the 21 sample counties. Culls are well dis- 
tributed over the state; within a county they will be con- 
centrated wherever hardwood stands are found. Heavy ac- 
cumulations of cull are found in the big river swamps of 
the Coastal Plain. The Great Swamp of Currituck, al- 
though logged some years ago, appears to be one big jun- 
gle of culls and low-grade material. Culls are even more 
scattered in the hardwood stands of the Piedmont and 
Mountains. 

TIMBER HARVESTING IN NORTH CAROLINA 

Five out of ten trees cut annually in North Carolina go 
to the sawmills. Three out of ten are made into fuel-wood, 
principally for farm heating purposes, as North Carolina 
has the second largest farm population in the Union. 
Pulpwood and veneer account for most of the remaining 
trees to go down before the axe and saw. Table 14 tells 
the complete story of 1943 forest drain, for the four re- 
gions and for the state. 

While Table 14 represents 1943, a war year, neverthe- 
less cutting was only about 10 per cent higher than the 
average for 1937 through 1940. 

This table is from Forest Survey Release No. 18, "N. C. 
Forest Growth and Drain 1937-1943." 

The last 3 columns headed "All sound trees — 5.0" d.b.h. 
and larger" includes the following classes of cordwood 
material: Complete trunk of sawtimber and under-sawlog- 
size trees to a minimum 4" top; sound wood in hardwood 
limbs 4" or larger. 

Study of the Table reveals that the proportions of trees 
cut for lumber, fuel, pulp, and veneer are about the same 
in each region as they are for the state as a whole. Minor 
deviations arise from the heavier cutting of fuel wood in 
the Piedmont (because of the greater farm population) 
and also because less veneer is cut in the Piedmont and 
Mountain regions. 

There exist big differences in the money returns to be 
realized from different tree products. There are two kinds 
of returns, those to the timber grower, and those to the 
business economy through which people earn livelihoods 
in manufacturing, transporting, and the providing of va- 
rious services. 

Generally speaking, North Carolina does not get the best 
all-round return from its lumber industry, since a large 
part of the production ends up as plain lumber, a com- 
modity not far removed from the raw material stage. 
Much of the output is shipped from the state. A thousand 
board feet of lumber would have had an average selling 
value of $45 to $50 in the last few years. This is much 
higher than previous years and has enabled sawmill men 
to pay surprisingly high stumpage prices ranging from 
$10 to $20. 

A thousand board feet of logs going to a veneer plant 
will be manufactured into veneers worth around $200 or 
more. If a thousand board feet of logs went to a pulp mill 



(19) 



FOREST DRAIN BY SURVEY UNIT. 



Table 14 
COMMODITY AND SPECIES 



GROUP, NORTH CAROLINA — 1943 



Survey unit and commodity 





Saw timber 




All sound 


trees- 


-5.0" d.b.h. and 


larger 


Softwoods 1 


Hardwoods 2 


All species 


Softwoods 1 




Hardwoods 2 


All species 


M. bd. ft. 

340,300 
1,500 


M. bd. ft. 

50,000 
63,900 


M. bd. ft. 
390,300 

65,400 


Cords 

910,000 
4,100 




Cords 

121,300 

155,200 


Cords 

1,031,300 
159,300 



Southern Coastal Plain: 

Lumber 

Veneer 

Cooperage 

Pulpwood 40,700 

Excelsior — 

Other manufactures 1,900 

Hewn crossties 7,500 

Poles and piles . 1,800 

Fuelwood '. 107,700 

Miscellaneous farm use 3,200 

Total 504,600 

Northern Coastal Plain: 

Lumber 324,400 

Veneer 700 

Cooperage 8,900 

Pulpwood 34,400 

Excelsior — 

Other manufactures 1,200 

Hewn crossties 2,000 

Poles and piles 17,400 

Fuelwood 71,700 

Miscellaneous farm use 2,100 

Total 462,800 

Piedmont: 

Lumber 540,400 

Veneer 100 

Cooperage — 

Pulpwood 31,600 

Excelsior 300 

Other manufactures 1,200 

Hewn crossties 200 

Poles and piles 300 

Fuelwood 174,100 

Miscellaneous farm use 3,500 

Total 751,700 

Mountain : 

Lumber 88,100 

Veneer — 

Cooperage — 

Pulpwood 16,500 

Excelsior 100 

Other manufactures 300 

Hewn crossties 1,300 

Poles and piles — 

Fuelwood 15,100 

Miscellaneous farm use 800 

Total 122,200 

State of North Carolina : 

Lumber 1,293,200 

Veneer 2,300 

Cooperage 8,900 

Pulpwood 123,200 

Excelsior 400 

Other manufactures 4,600 

Hewn crossties 11,000 

Poles and piles 19,500 

Fuelwood 368,600 

Miscellaneous farm use 9,600 

Total 1,841,300 

1 Cypress included with softwoods. 
• Chestnut is not included. 



1,100 



164,000 



138,400 



199,900 



41,800 



151,400 



668,600 



1,677,800 



601,200 



1,403,000 



951,600 



2,651,200 



3,600 



654,400 



496,000 



877,300 



155,000 



6,500 


8,400 


4,400 


15,700 


20,100 


13,100 


20,600 


18,300 


31,700 


50,000 


— 


1,800 


8,800 


— 


8,800 


27,300 


135,000 


553,400 


312,100 


865,500 


2,100 


5,300 


27,400 


14,800 


42,200 



2,332,200 



60,600 


385,000 


829,000 


143,600 


972,600 


45,600 


46,300 


1,900 


108,000 


109,900 


— 


8,900 


22,700 


100 


22,800 


5,900 


40,300 


112,500 


16,200 


128,700 


2,700 


3,900 


2,700 


7,000 


9,700 


4,100 


6,100 


4,500 


9,700 


14,200 


300 


17,700 


44,700 


700 


45,400 


17,800 


89,500 


366,600 


200,800 


567,400 


1,400 


3,500 


18,400 


9,900 


28,300 



1,899,000 



96,800 


637,200 


1,598,900 


256,100 


1,855,000 


26,900 


27,000 


600 


71,300 


71,900 


3,900 


35,500 


129,700 


15,500 


145,200 


— 


300 


4,200 


400 


4,600 


7,500 


8,700 


5,300 


29,400 


34,700 


20,700 


20,900 


400 


54,700 


55,100 


— 


300 


900 


— 


900 


42,100 


216,200 


883,100 


434,800 


1,317,900 


2,000 


5,500 


28,100 


15,100 


43,200 



3,528,500 



116,200 


204,300 


260,800 


325,400 


586,200 


8,200 


8,200 


— 


23,100 


23,100 


200 


200 


— 


600 


600 


5,500 


22,000 


71,700 


46,700 


118,400 


100 


200 


400 


300 


700 


3,800 


4,100 


900 


22,100 


23,000 


9,800 


11,100 


4,000 


27,400 


31,400 


25,800 


40,900 


94,500 


251,500 


346,000 


1,700 


2,500 


7,400 


13,800 


21,200 


171,300 


293,500 


439,700 


710,900 


1,150,600 


323,600 


1,616,800 


3,598,700 


846,400 


4,445,100 


144,600 


146,900 


6,600 


357,600 


364,200 


200 


9,100 


22,700 


700 


23,400 


16,400 


139,600 


465,300 


82,000 


547,300 


100 


500 


4,600 


700 


5,300 


20,500 


25,100 


13,300 


74,200 


87,500 


47,700 


58,700 


27,200 


123,500 


150,700 


300 


19,800 


54,400 


700 


55,100 


113,000 


481,600 


1,897,600 


1,199,200 


3,096,800 


7,200 


16,800 


81,300 


53,600 


134,900 


673,600 


2,514,900 


6,171,700 


2,738,600 


8,910,300 



it would probably produce $80 worth of semi-finished pulp. 
A thousand board feet of long poles would be worth con- 
siderably more after treatment in a wood preserving plant 
than if cut up for lumber. 

Since half the trees cut are manufactured into lumber, 
which rates rather low on the income scale, it would be 
a good trend to have more trees go into veneer and poles, 
and to re-manufacture as much lumber as possible in local 
plants making furniture, flooring, small-wood products, 
and so on. 

As the pulp mills do not have to use good lumber trees, 
stumpage prices are usually lower for pulpwood. It is de- 
sirable to utilize as many of these non-lumber trees as 
possible for the production of pulp. Fuelwood require- 
ments could be met very largely from non-lumber trees. 
However, about half of the fuelwood cut in North Caro- 
lina is said to be cut from portions of sound trees that 
would produce lumber, or even poles and veneer. Agricul- 
tural educators should strive to improve this practice. 

With such a large lumber cut, North Carolina can make 
progress through development of more plants to re-manu- 
facture lumber. At present there are pleasing situations in 
many spots. For example, Randolph County has dozens of 
small manufacturing plants that use oak, poplar and pine. 
The grades of hardwood in the county are not high, but 
these shops enable the county to extract a high income 
from its timber crop. Average grade timber sells very 
profitably and utilization is close. One 300-acre tract, most- 
ly oak, sold for $27,000 recently. 

The shops make all kinds of furniture, and novelties. 
One farmer has installed a shop in his barn, and makes 
lawn furniture in his spare time. In Yadkin County there 
is a "Little Red Wagon" factory, which makes children's 
wagons in normal times. Haywood County is noted for its 
Hillbilly Industries which makes all kinds of fancy novel- 
ties and employ many people. 

This is the type of enterprise found in Northern New 
England. The people there can take a few thousand feet 
of logs, lumber, or even cordwood, and make excellent 
yearly profits from manufacture of spools, handles, clothes 
pins, games, and other items. North Carolina is already 
far ahead of other Southern states in skilled wood manu- 
facturing. Of course, lumber will always be needed, and 
the price may stay high. To get the most from the timber 
crop, as much wood as possible should be carried beyond 
the lumber stage. To saw trees into lumber for export is 
not the way to grow prosperous. 

MINIMUM SIZE OF TREES CUT 

Over most of the state, the minimum diameter to which 
sawlog trees are cut does not appear to have changed ma- 
terially. Measurements of stumps on 112 plots, where cut- 
ting had occurred, showed average minimum stump diame- 
ters for pine sawtimber (outside bark) of 13 inches in the 
North Coastal Plain, 11 inches in the South Coastal Plain, 
10 in the Piedmont, and 11 in the Mountains. For hard- 
wood, sawtimber minimum size stumps averaged 15 % 
inches in the North Coastal Plain; (data too scanty in 
South Coastal Plain) ; 13 inches in the Piedmont; and 13 
inches in the Mountains. The average of minimum stump 
diameters for pulpwood was 6 % inches. These figures do 
not imply that all trees of the above stump diameters were 
cut. Usually, just the smoother ones, where convenient to 
log, were taken. 



Availability of Stumpage. Many lumbermen were ques- 
tioned about available stumpage. About half of them fig- 
ured they would have to curtail operations; others said 
the timber was there, but stumpage prices were too high. 
Several commented that with education of timber owners, 
and fire protection on their lands, sufficient timber could 
be grown to supply the mills. 

The Southern Box and Lumber Co., Wilmington, said, 
"We are planning to operate forever." They own land, pro- 
tect it, and cut under a plan. 

Another company said, "We have bought land with the 
idea of trying to have 1000 acres of reproducing pine lands 
for each 1000 feet sawed per day. Other sawmill operators 
are becoming like-minded." Then if each acre could grow 
one board foot per day, the company would have a per- 
petual supply of their own. Under intensive forestry, pine 
stands can do it. 

The companies owning or buying land are the most op- 
timistic, and they will lead in good timber farming. All 
pulp companies are acquiring lands so they will always 
have a supply of raw material. If stumpage becomes scarce 
they can raise stumpage prices, or start using more hard- 
woods, also slabs, tops, and culls. 

Observations made on cut-over areas showed that the 
stump diameters were just as small on cuttings made be- 
fore the war as those made during the war period. 

Top utilization was closest in the Piedmont. Of all state 
cuttings, 7 per cent represented wasteful top utilization, 
25 per cent fair, and 67 per cent good. This rating includes 
pulpwood and fuelwood cut from tops, when utilized. 

Percentages of original sawlog volume removed in saw- 
log cutting were estimated. They are about the same in 
the South Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountains, being 
slightly over 80 per cent. In the North Coastal Plain, cut- 
ting has been less heavy. The sawlog trees not cut were of- 
ten hardwoods. Hickory is still mostly left in the woods. 
New power chain saws make it possible to utilize more 
low-grade logs. 

LUMBER PRODUCTION 

If one lacks faith in the ability of North Carolina's for- 
ests to grow timber, let him consider the remarkable rec- 
ord of sustained lumber output for 50 years. 



Year Production Year 

1889 670,000 M bd. ft. 1925 

1899 1,287,000 M bd. ft. 1930 

1905 1,081,000 M bd.ft. 1935 

1910 1,825,000 M bd. ft. 1940 

1915 1,537,000 M bd. ft. 1942 

1920 1,450,000 M bd. ft. 1944 



Production 

1,708,000 M bd. ft. 

815,000 M bd. ft. 

685,000 M bd. ft. 
1,377,000 M bd. ft. 
1,692,000 M bd. ft. 
1,634,000 M bd. ft. 

The great bulk of the lumber is cut by portable mills, 
now numbering over 3,000. They operate all over the state, 
but (Figure 3) are more concentrated in the Piedmont. 
Larger mills with production over 5 million feet yearly 
saw 1/7 of the lumber and are located mostly in the Coast- 
al Plain. 

In recent years, the Census has reported production by 
counties, the Census in 1942 being more intensive than 
those made in other years. The figures in Table 15 show 
lumber sawed by mills in each county for the year 1942. 
These figures differ, in many cases, from the amount of 
timber logged in each county as some mills draw logs from 
several counties. 

No lumber production figures were collected by the ap- 



(21) 








o 

UJ 

< 

«0 







W 


<»> 


*l 






Ift 




o 
cc 




IT." 






z 

in 




i 


o 


O 






>1 




$ 


„ 


o 
o 


a 




3 i*. 


CM 




• 


• 


o 

a 


M O 

i" 


Ul UJ 


* 


Ul *- 






o 


z I 


t- •- 

«n v) 

Ul Ul 

o p 
u. u. 


cn 


o z 

w i 

u 
o 




0» 

<T> 

»" 

o 


o 

o 
o 

3 


h\ 


z 




o 










«J 














X 

o 




-J 


o 


o 




* *» 


4 




i 


• 


• 






< 






/*■ 








a 
a. 




S 










< 


















i| 

Is 






(22) 



praisal, but it is believed that existing drain figures for 
lumber are too low. Black market transactions do not find 
their way into reports of lumber cut. Collecting lumber 
production data is a very difficult job at any time, and has 
been made doubly so in recent years. 

The appraisal determined areas cut over for logs, wood, 
and pulp in each sample county, according to the propor- 
tion of plots having such cuttings. Bertie County, for 



example, showed that an estimated 114,000 acres was cut 
for logs in five years. If one assumes the average log cut- 
ting removed to be 3 M per acre, then 340 million feet were 
cut in five years, or 70 million per year. The Census shows 
49 million sawed in 1942, a high year. 

Halifax County was indicated to have had 87,000 acres 
cut over for logs in the previous five years. Assuming 2 M 
cut per acre, this would be 175 million feet cut, or 35 



Table 15 

PRODUCTION OF LUMBER BY COUNTIES 

1942 



County 



Lumber Sawed (M ft.,b.m.) 



County 



Lumber Sawed (M ft.,b.m.) 



Alamance 

Alexander 

Alleghany 

Anson 

Ashe 

Avery 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunswick & New Hanover 

Buncombe 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret & Jones 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Cherokee & Graham 

Chowan & Perquimans .... 

Clay 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Currituck 

Dare & Hyde 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin . . 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Granville 

Greene "... 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Iredell 



7,721 
11,529 

3,871 
33,219 

8,075 

6,512 
51,567 
49,055 
42,563 
11,364 

9,683 
12,687 

1,232 

17,978 

447 

9,681 
16,996 
20,598 
47,438 
17,301 
24,246 

7,990 

7,520 
45,558 
35,139 
23,264 

1,605 

2,865 
19,332 

8,268 
42,486 
16,266 

8,083 

9,861 
27,659 

4,595 

4,115 
41,819 

1,076 
35,398 
18,427 
27,387 
12,310 

2,287 
14,636 

5,792 
18,240 



Jackson and Transylvania 

Johnston 

Lee 

Lenoir and Pitt 

Lincoln 

McDowell 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Person 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake < 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



24,692 
18,367 
13,027 
18,015 

8,870 

6,976 
11,376 

4,264 
26,300 

3,884 

4,335 
32,162 
33,180 
22,358 
35,356 

9,587 
21,408 

8,073 
28,165 
18,753 
19,177 

7,798 
34,778 
17,420 
27,972 
13,388 

9,016 
18,233 
45,126 

3,941 
18,046 
15,543 
17,687 
13,475 
13,300 
18,846 

5,708 
48,127 
32,027 
10,694 
10,724 
20,908 
40,942 

9,953 
13,365 
10,543 



State Total 1,691,536 



(23) 



million per year. The Census shows 18 million feet sawed. 
These calculations of course prove nothing, but do show 
one reason for the supposition that lumber drain may be 
higher than reported. Some counties came out about right 
on these guess-calculations. Sample plots indicated that 
Halifax County had an additional 38,000 acres cut over 
for pulpwood in five years. 

PULPWOOD PRODUCTION 

Production figures by counties are not available for pub- 
lication. Information for 1942 has been drawn upon to 
point out sections of the various units where cutting was 
concentrated in that year. 

Northern Coastal Plain: Halifax and Northampton 
counties accounted for 40 per cent of the unit production. 
Bertie, Gates, Washington, and Hertford counties produced 
40 per cent of the unit total. Approximately 5 per cent of 
the volume cut was hardwood material. 

Southern Coastal Plain: Pender, Bladen, and Bruns- 
wick accounted for 60 per cent of pulpwood cut in the unit. 
Sampson, Duplin, Robeson and Onslow were next, their 
combined production amounting to 25 per cent of unit total. 
Hardwood was negligible. 

Piedmont: With cutting widely distributed, Chatham 
and Rockingham accounted for 30 per cent, with Warren, 
Rutherford, and Wake totaling another 20 per cent. The 
rest of the production came from another 21 counties. 
Approximately a tenth of Piedmont production was hard- 
wood. 

Mountain Unit: Cutting occurred in all 21 counties. 
Cherokee and Graham accounted for 30 per cent of the 
total, Haywood, Swain, and McDowell making up another 
25 per cent, half of the total being hardwoods. 

Pulpwood production in the Piedmont rose sharply in 
1943, but declined in the Coastal Plains. This trend was 
caused by labor and hauling factors under war-time 
shortages. 

North Carolina pulp production has been rising steadily, 
as follows: 

1937 240 M cords 

1938 290 M cords 

1939 315 M cords 

1940 512 M cords 

1941 582 M cords 

1942 606 M cords 

1943 547 M cords 

FUELWOOD CUTTING 

The amount of wood cut for heating purposes is related 
to: (1) the number of people in rural areas; (2) the 
amount of tobacco produced. 

The average farm family is said to use over 12 cords per 
year for household purposes. The average per small town 
and city family is considerably less, but it is still more 
than one might guess — five and two cords, respectively. 

The amount of tobacco cured per cord of wood is esti- 
mated to be 600 pounds. Big tobacco crops of recent years 
have required nearly a million cords of wood despite the 
gradual trend toward the use of coal and oil. 

Fuelwood is another item of drain that is difficult to 
measure accurately, because farmers themselves do not 
know how much they use. Undoubtedly, fuelwood use has 
dropped substantially, owing to labor shortage during the 



war period. County agents and Soil Conservation Service 
technicians were asked how much fuelwood cutting had 
increased or decreased. Only one, in Chatham County, 
said there was an increase. Eighty per cent of these 
farm counsellors said cutting had decreased, the average 
estimate of decrease being 20 per cent. 

DEGREE OF SATISFACTORY STOCKING 

One may compare the stocking of an acre of forest land 
with an acre of corn. Corn-land yields, in bushels per acre, 
depend on the stand obtained from planting, fertility of 
soil, season, and competition from weeds and insects. Given 
an acre of land that could produce 50 bushels per acre, 
suppose the yield was 25 bushels, because of poor germina- 
tion that gave a scattered stand; rank weed growth from 
lack of cultivation that choked out part of the crop, and 
insects destroying still other stalks. It could be stated that 
the acre was only 50 per cent stocked, and gave 50 per cent 
of a crop. This is analagous to stocking on the forest area. 
If it has only half as many stalks, or trees, as it should 
have, then the yield will be one-half of capacity. 

What is satisfactory stocking of forest land in the differ- 
ent sections of North Carolina? This question could not be 
answered definitely by the various agencies contacted. The 
consultants, through a check of existing literature, and 
through personal knowledge of managed forest areas, de- 
cided on a set of standards. The standards represent the 
average stand per acre that can be maintained on period- 
ically cut forest areas under practicable management. 
Standards were set for sawtimber, under-sawtimber-size, 
and reproduction. 

The standards per acre for the various regions are as 
follows (meaning well-distributed stems) : 

1. Northern and Southern Coastal Plain. Eight thousand 
board feet of sawtimber, or 12 cords of under-sawlog- 
size, or 640 seedlings under 1 inch in diameter at breast 
height. 

2. Piedmont. Seven thousand board feet of sawtimber, or 
10 cords of under-sawlog-size or 640 seedlings under 1 
inch in diameter at breast height. 

3. Mountains. Five thousand board feet of sawtimber, or 
8 cords of under-sawlog size or 640 seedlings under 1 
inch in diameter at breast height. Here, hardwoods 
will make up most of the volume. 

As reproduction diameters include the 4 inch tree class, 
480 trees in the 2 inch class or 320 trees in the 4 inch class 
constituted full stocking. 

Any one acre of forest land may be fully or partially 
stocked with one or a combination of the above mentioned 
conditions. If the acre does not support satisfactory stock- 
ing on the basis of the set standards, the percentage differ- 
ence is designated as non-stocked. Reasons are sought for 
the non-stocked condition. For example, consider an acre 
plot in the Northern Coastal Plain that has been tallied 
and the volume determined. The estimator finds 2 M bd. ft. 
of sawtimber, 3 cords of under-sawlog size, and 160 seed- 
lings. On the basis of the above standards the acre is 25 
per cent stocked with sawtimber, 25 per cent under-sawlog- 
size, and 25 per cent reproduction, while 25 per cent of the 
area is non-stocked. This acre does not have enough trees 
to be satisfactorily stocked. 

It is suggested that an ideal stocking, based on the 
proper distribution of size classes, would be to have 66% 



(24) 



percent of the area occupied by sawtimber and under-saw- 
timber size, and 33 % percent of the area occupied by re- 
production. Non-stocked areas would be at a minimum. An 
examination of Table 16 will give the reader an idea of the 
approximate conditions as they exist in the sample coun- 
ties. 

Individual sample counties, within the same region and 
between regions, show a wide variation in degree of stock- 
ing. In the North Coastal Plain, Bertie County has 71 per 
cent stocking in the sawtimber and under-sawtimber size. 
This is probably due to the presence of a large amount of 
over-mature hardwood timber in the river swamp type and 
to the fact that timber cutting in the 10 inch-14 inch di- 
ameters (D.B.H.) classes has not been as heavy as in other 
sample counties in this region. 



Pender County, in the Southern Coastal Plain, may be 
used to illustrate the opposite condition. This county shows 
30 per cent stocking in the sawtimber and under-sawtimber 
size. Heavy cutting for logs and pulpwood, and lack of pine 
reseeding, is responsible for this condition. 

Development of regional and state totals, from data ob- 
tained in the sample counties, is shown in Table 17. 

An examination of Table 17 will show that the worst 
stocking conditions are found in the South Coastal Plain. 
The understocked condition in this region is due substan- 
tially to lack of pine seed trees and the prevalence of un- 
restricted fire. It should be borne in mind that if there is 
no pine on a large proportion of the forest land in the 
Coastal Plain, there will be nothing there but scrubby 
hardwoods. 



Table 16. 

ESTIMATED DEGREE OF SATISFACTORY STOCKING AS DETERMINED 

FOR THE 21 SAMPLE COUNTIES IN PER CENT 



County 



Commercial 
Forest 
Acres 



Degree of Satisfactory Stocking 



Sawtimber and 
Under-Sawlog 



Reproduction 



Total 



Degree of 
Non-Stocking 



NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 



Beaufort 363,779 

Bertie 306,916 

Currituck 80,022 

Halifax 239,357 

Tyrrell 213,481 

Bladen 424,795 

Harnett 238,134 

Jones 231,931 

Pender 465,111 

Richmond 191,411 

Wayne 175,824 

Caswell 152,842 

Gaston 85,233 

Randolph 303,483 

Wake 306,320 

Yadkin 94,122 

Ashe 90,138 

Buncombe 271,632 

Caldwell 220,551 

Graham 169,100 

Jackson 252,724 



44.2 


31.8 


76.0 


24.0 


71.4 


20.1 


91.5 


8.5 


50.0 


21.2 


71.2 


28.8 


48.2 


34.3 


82.5 


17.5 


43.8 


39.4 


83.2 


16.8 


SOUTHERN COASTAL 


PLAIN 






38.7 


28.2 


66.9 


33.1 


39.7 


26.4 


66.1 


32.9 


38.9 


35.5 


74.4 


25.6 


30.6 


34.2 


64.8 


35.2 


40.6 


22.8 


63.4 


36.6 


46.8 


33.8 


80.6 


19.4 


PIEDMONT 








45.7 


36.9 


82.1 


17.9 


52.0 


31.3 


83.3 


16.7 


55.0 


26.0 


81.0 


19.0 


68.3 


21.9 


90.2 


9.8 


60.8 


27.2 


88.0 


12.0 


MOUNTAINS 








39.8 


29.2 


69.0 


31.0 


66.0 


16.0 


82.0 


18.0 


61.5 


23.6 


85.1 


14.9 


61.0 


25.0 


86.0 


14.0 


35.0 


36.0 


71.0 


29.0 



Table 17 
ESTIMATED DEGREE OF SATISFACTORY STOCKING ON REGIONAL BASIS 



Region 



Total 


Degree of Satisfactory Stocking 
in Per Cent 




Commercial 

Forest Acreage 

of Region 


Sawtimber and 

Under-sawlog 

Size 




Reproduction 


Degree of 

Non-stocking 

Per Cent 


4,140,752 


52.2 




30.0 


17.8 


5,607,685 


37.7 




30.5 


31.8 


5,039,742 


58.2 




26.9 


14.9 


3,748,679 


54.0 




25.4 


20.6 


18,536,358 


49.9 




28.3 


21.8 



North Coastal Plain 
South Coastal Plain 

Piedmont 

Mountain 

State 



(25) 



NON-STOCKING 

Table 17 shows that 21.8 per cent of North Carolina's 
forest area is non-productive at present. In other words, 
approximately four million acres of forest lands are con- 
tributing nothing in the way of wood production to the 
economy of the state. 

What is the reason for this condition? The consultants 
endeavored to answer the problem by determining the 
main reason for non-stocking on each of the non-stocked 
plots. 

The following code was used to designate the reason for 
non-stocking : 

A. Obstruction by culls and scrubs of cordwood size or 
larger. 

B. Obstruction by advance reproduction of non-timber 

species. 

C. Obstruction by low ground cover of vines and bushes. 

D. Pine seed trees lacking — site too poor for hardwoods. 

E. Recently cut area. 

F. Effects of fire. 

G. Incompletely seeded old field. 

H. Seed trees present, ground not obstructed, reason for 

non-stocking not apparent. 
I. Site too poor to support full stocking. 

Obviously, some of these items overlap. For example, if 
pine seed trees had been present, seedlings might have re- 
ceived an early start and climbed out of the "C" obstruc- 
tion before it became so dense. 

Tabular results of the findings are recorded in Table 18. 

Table 18 

Region ABC DEFGHI 

North 

Coastal Plain . . 35 22 8 7 16 41 1 . . 

South 

Coastal Plain . . 37 31 21 67 11 47 1 6 . . 

Piedmont 39 41 8 4 24 2 6 6 9 

Mountain 17 43 5 3 . . 3 1 5 

Total 128 137 37 83 54 90 10 14 14 

One other question was asked concerning each non- 
stocked plot. "Will this area restock naturally in the next 
10 years if not burned?" In 20 per cent of the cases the 
question was answered in the affirmative. Such non-stocked 
areas expected to reseed were largely of fire origin (10 
per cent) and from effects of recent cuttings (6 per cent). 
If all woodlands could be protected, one might expect ap- 
proximately 800,000 of the 4 million non-stocked acres to 
come back into production in 10 years without assistance. 
This, of course, is an unrealistic expectation. Actually, 
there are approximately 3,200,000 acres of "idle" forest 
land to "have and to hold" until changes are made in 
utilization or cutting practices. 

Obstructions, as identified by code letters A, B, and C 
are responsible for 53 per cent of the non-stocking. Present 
cutting practices will tend to increase this percentage as 
pine stands are cut and as more marketable hardwoods are 
removed from the hardwood areas. Cull material will in- 
crease because it is being left after each "selective cut" 



(i.e., select the best and leave the worst). With complete 
exclusion of fire, hardwood bushes, especially in the 
Coastal Plain, increase to a point where pine seedlings 
cannot compete and will disappear from the stand. Hard- 
wood reproduction of timber producing species may also be 
checked by the complete cover of non-timber producing 
shrubs and small trees. 

Regulation of cutting practices is not the answer to this 
problem. Regulation cannot force the cutting of culls and 
shrubs and, until markets are developed for such material, 
it will tend to accumulate in the forests. Regulation can 
require the leaving of pine seed trees. This will, in some 
cases, establish pine seedlings quickly after cutting, there- 
by enabling some pine to become established before the 
brush takes over the area. 

Complete exclusion of fire will not solve the problem, as 
most of the pine stands in the Coastal Plain are a direct 
result of fire in the past. Fires killed the bushes and ex- 
posed the soil thus preparing a bed for the pine seed. Fires 
seldom killed the large pines. 

The problem of obstruction is one which will need some 
very pertinent research to solve. The answer may be found 

TIMBER CUTTINGS THAT REMOVED THE 
SOURCES OF PINE SEED 




Bladen County. Professor Slocum stands by the stump of a pine that 
should have been left. No other tree on 10 acres here could serve as a seed 
tree. Fire is a threat on this area. 





Pender County. None of these saplings can produce seed for years. 
This view exemplifies the tremendous waste due to nonproducing lands 
in North Carolina. 



(26) 



with the aid of an axe, a fire, or a goat. First, of course, 
there is need of more complete cutting which leaves no 
culls, or low-grade, or defective small trees containing 
sound wood. 

Fifteen per cent of non-stocking on pine lands was 
traced primarily to the absence of a pine seed source. This 
problem could be helped by regulatory action. Where 
present, a source of pine seed must be retained if owners 

CAN PINE STANDS BE REGENERATED? 




7. Pine reproduction can be obtained here in abundance. Frequent 
burning has continually killed back the hardwood sprouts. The ground 
is exposed to the extent that pines will "catch." There are already a 
fair number of very young pine seedlings present, grown up since the 
last fire. Fires will have to be kept out if the seedlings are to develop. 
The timber has been burned more often and harder than would be 
necessary to keep down the hardwoods. Johnston County. 




are to continue to grow pine on large areas of this state. 
Present trends show closer cutting of pine, as any one can 
see by looking at the log trucks that roll by on the high- 
way. A "seed tree law" that can be easily interpreted and 
fairly enforced would retain a source of pine seed for 
future crops. 

EXAMPLES OF HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL PINE 
REGENERATION 




9. A fairly heavy stand of pine was cut on this area several years ago. 
Prior to the time the sawtimber was cut, occasional fires had kept 
down the hardwood growth. Sources of pine seed remained after cutting 
and the area quickly reseeded. The saplings are now growing vigorously. 
By a "fortunate accident" no fires have occurred since the cutting. A 
fire in pines of this size would be ruinous. Jones County. 







8. It will be possible to obtain good pine reproduction here when a 
cutting is made in this loblolly pine stand. Fires have kept the hardwood 
understory completely cleaned out. Some very hot fires have passed over 
this land with the result that pine trunks are charred to a height of 
20 feet. Some smaller pines have been killed. Lands of a pulp company 
in Northern Coastal Plain. 



10. This area is located many miles from the one pictured above, but 
has had a similar history. There were occasional fires before the pine 
sawtimber was cut, which kept down the hardwood growth. Pine seed 
trees were left. The area reseeded thickly to loblolly pine immediately 
following the cutting. Fortunately, no fires have occurred since the 
reproduction was established. Hardwood growth is coming up with the 
pines, but the pines will outgrow it and not be handicapped. Jones 
County. 



(27) 



Non-stocking due to prevalence of fire was limited 
mainly to the Northern and Southern Coastal Plain. Six- 
teen per cent of the non-stocking was due to this cause. 
Annual burning, in many sections of the two regions, has 
eliminated both pine and hardwood reproduction from 
large areas. A seed source is often present, but the areas 
cannot become stocked until adequate protection becomes a 
reality. 

REPRODUCTION 

It has been shown that 28.3 per cent of the stocking in 
North Carolina is reproduction. What is the proportion of 
pine and hardwood in this class of trees under 5 inches 
d.b.h.? Table 19 shows these proportions for the 21 sample 
counties. 

Reference to Table 11 will show that the present stand 
of under-sawlog size material in the North Coastal Plain 
is composed of approximately the same proportion of pine 
and hardwood as was present in 1938; the South Coastal 

Table 19 
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF PINE AND HARD- 
WOOD REPRODUCTION IN 21 SAMPLE COUNTIES 

County Per Cent Pine Per Cent Hardwood 

NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 

Beaufort 25.0 75.0 

Bertie 20.5 79.5 

Currituck 8.8 91.2 

Halifax 16.1 83.9 

Tyrrell 28.7 71.3 

Regional Average 22.0 78.0 

SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 

Bladen 48.7 51.3 

Harnett 25.9 74.1 

Jones 51.4 48.6 

Pender 64.1 35.9 

Richmond 43.2 56.8 

Wayne 37.2 62.8 

Regional Average 49.3 50.7 

PIEDMONT 

Caswell 32.0 68.0 

Gaston 23.0 77.0 

Randolph 18.6 81.4 

Wake 34.5 65.5 

Yadkin 38.7 61.3 

Regional Average 28.3 71.7 

MOUNTAINS 

Ashe 8.0 92.0 

Buncombe 18.0 82.0 

Caldwell 21.0 79.0 

Graham 5.0 95.0 

Jackson 11.0 89.0 

Regional Average 12.9 87.1 



Plain has a gain in the proportion of pine; the Piedmont 
has a gain in the proportion of pine ; the Mountains retain 
practically the same proportion of both. Recruitment of 
this material into sawlog size will give substantial stands 
of pine for the next cut. A study of under-sawlog-size 
only would cause no alarm over the so-called "hardwood 
encroachment." 

However, a study of the reproduction that will replace 
the present under-sawlog-size in the next cycle, presents 
an entirely different picture. A comparison of present un- 
der-sawlog-size pine-hardwood proportions, with present 
proportions of pine-hardwood reproduction, is shown in 
Table 20. 

Table 20 

PROPORTION OF PINE AND HARDWOOD 6"-8" 

CLASS VS. REPRODUCTION 

(Based on Tree Numbers in Both Cases.) 

Under-Sawlog-Size Trees Reproduction-Size Trees 
% Pine % Hardwoods % Pine % Hardwoods 
Region (6"-8") (6"-8") 

N. C. Plain 51 49 22 78 

S. C. Plain 71 29 49 51 

Piedmont 68 32 28 72 

Mountains 23 77 13 87 



The percentage figures in Table 20 were derived from 
total numbers of tree stems in each category. In the North- 
ern Coastal Plain, present under-sawlog-size material is 
composed of 51 per cent pine and 49 per cent hardwood. 
This trend is not out of proportion considering the large 
percentage of swamp and river-bottom type in this region. 
However, with only 22 per cent pine reproduction growing 
to replace the present under-sawlog-size, the trend is defi- 
nitely in favor of the hardwood. 

The Southern Coastal Plain, with 71 per cent pine and 
29 per cent hardwood in the under-sawlog-size, and 49 per 
cent pine and 51 per cent hardwood reproduction, reflects 
the effects of continued burning. If the present rate of 
woods burning is continued, the trend will be toward a re- 
duction of hardwood stems and a corresponding increase 
in pine in the larger classes. However, stands of pine will 
continue to remain light if uncontrolled fire continues. 

The Piedmont presents the most serious condition in 
reference to future pine stands. Present high pine ratios in 
the under-sawlog-size are a definite reflection of land 
clearing and abandonment. There are thousands of acres of 
bandoned old fields supporting fine stands of young pine 
in this region today. The trend, at present, is toward land 
stabilization and when lands do become stable, the day of 
the "old field pine" will end. 

Present under-sawlog-size is made up of 68 per cent pine 
and 32 per cent hardwood while the reproduction is 28 per 
cent pine and 72 per cent hardwood. Most of reproduction 
size is, of course, in abandoned fields too. 

The Mountain region is primarily a hardwood region 
and, thus, causes no concern. 

It can be seen that pine reproduction is fighting a losing 
battle in all sections of the state. Present cutting methods 
tend to increase the odds against the pine. Even conven- 
tional silvicultural methods of cutting such as the selec- 
tion, shelterwood, and seed tree methods do not insure re- 
production of the pine species. In fact, they aid in the re- 



(28) 



production of the various hardwood species by removing 
the overstory of pine. This merely hastens the approach 
to Nature's goal of establishing a hardwood climax forest. 
As most of our pine forests developed as a result of dis- 
turbing Nature's process by land clearing or fire, what are 
foresters going to do to keep North Carolina's pine lands — 
estimated to be at least % of the forest area of the state — 
producing pine in the next 50 or 100 years? Will the prob- 
lem be solved by forgetting pine and concentrating on the 
development of bulkwood industries to use the tremendous 
volume of hardwood that is usable for no other purpose at 
present except fuel? 

If so, the forests will be able to support only about one- 
half of the bulk-wood industry, or % of the lumber in- 
dustry that would be possible with pine. 

CAUSES OF FIRE 

Figures supplied by the N. C. Forest Service show the 
following causes of forest fires on State-protected areas 
in the order of their incidence. The figures shown are the 
annual average as determined for the calendar years 1940 
to 1944, inclusive. 

1. Smokers 1212 

2. Incendiary 851 

3. Debris burning 792 

4. Hunters, fishermen, campers 419 

5. Miscellaneous 338 

6. Railroads 193 

7. Lumbering . . 98 

8. Lightning 34 

Total, all causes 3937 

The above figures show the number of fires by various 
causes for cooperating counties only. For the fiscal year 
1945-46 there are 63 counties cooperating. Only estimates 
are available for the non-cooperating counties. 

What about the personal element involved in most fires? 
Human carelessness and lack of responsibility and, in 
some cases, local customs, are the main issues. 

Many forest fires develop while individuals are engaged 
in burning tobacco beds, ditch banks, hedgerows, broom 
straw fields and pasture. Responsibility for fires of this 
type is generally not hard to establish when experienced 
men are used to collect evidence. Once responsibility is 
established, the proper action can (and should) be taken. 

Fire law enforcement, it should be said, is an important 
part of the work of the Division of Forestry and Parks. In 
fact, the Division's law enforcement record has been for 
some years the best among forestry agencies in the South. 
This program, like many others, has suffered during the 
war years due to drastic loss of supervisory personnel. In 
1940, as a sample pre-war year, the Division handled 4,726 
fires and 445 fire law prosecutions (of which 397 resulted 
in court convictions). An additional 424 cases were settled 
for payment of the fire-fighting costs by the responsible 
parties. 

Hunters are responsible for many fires by failure to 
extinguish warming fires and by trying to smoke squirrels, 
o'possums, raccoons, or bees from hollow trees. Local deer 
hunters often take it upon themselves to improve hunting 
by eliminating underbrush. Some areas, it seems, have to 
be "swinged off" periodically so that hunters can see to 
shoot! Ownership of land does not concern them, neither 
does the crop of trees present on the area. 



Others burn to "kill boll weevils" or "ticks and snakes" 
and "to chase the bears back in the swamp so they won't 
eat the corn or 'chillun' ". Education may convince some 
of these people that burning does not accomplish their 
purpose. Habitual woods-burners will have to be "lawed 
until they see the light." 

FIRES RAVAGE EASTERN N. C. WOODLANDS 




11. Farm tenants who live near this big woods area in Jones County 
are apparently responsible for fires sweeping across it nearly every year. 
There are some good pine seed trees and the area could reseed to pine if 
burning could be stopped. Th ground is in good shape for pines to become 
established. 



. ,.-5^, 




III 

I 





m ■'> 



12. The owner of this formerly dense young loblolly stand in Bertie 
County has sustained a heavy financial loss due to fire. The majority 
of the pines were killed. 

EXTENT OF BURNING 

A study of Table 21 will show that woods burning is also 
a regional problem. Present fire detection and suppression 
methods appear to be satisfactory in the Piedmont and 
Mountain Region, but are inadequate in the Northern and 
Southern Coastal Plain. The figures listed under acreage 
burned have been determined by field sampling and do not 
necessarily check with other published acreage figures. 
However, the sampling method used gives a very good in- 
dication of actual burned acreage. 

Wake County may be used as an example of procedure. 
Seventy-four one-quarter acre plots were mechanically se- 
lected for study. The plots were carefully checked to de- 
termine if burning had taken place within one or five 
years, this information being obtained from the age of 



(29) 



sprouts on fire killed hardwoods. The one source of error 
incurred is that it is impossible to tell if sprouts five years 
old were killed by a fall fire in the sixth year, or by a 
spring fire in the fifth year. This error is more than bal- 
anced, however, by the fact that many areas have burned 
more than once in the five-year period. 

It was thus determined for Wake County that 2.8 per 
cent of the plots or 8,675 acres were burned in the current 
year, while 11.4 per cent or 35,313 acres were burned in 
the five-year period. The average annual burn in this 
county for the five-year period was 2.3 per cent or 7,064 
acres. 

Table 22 was developed from the average burned acre- 
age figures of the sample counties. The development of 
this table presupposes that the sample counties contained 
representative conditions in each region. 



OVERWHELMING FIRE PROBLEM IN EASTERN 
NORTH CAROLINA 

On the coastal side of the Northern and Southern Coast- 
al Plains there is a strip, approximately 75 miles wide 
from Virginia to South Carolina, that features conditions 
not to be found on such a large scale anywhere else in the 
United States. There are about 25 counties lying in this 
area. This coastal region is typified by flat land, sand 
ridges, pocosins, bays, and swamps. 

The fire situation in this region is one that will need 
more money, trained men, and research to control. The 
present fire protection system is quite inadequate and can- 
not possibly solve the problem, which arises from the in- 
flammability and rapid growth of vegetation; peaty and 
inflammable nature of much of the soil in time of drouth; 
large unbroken forests tracts; and attitude of the people. 



Table 21 
ESTIMATED ACREAGE AND PER CENT OF FOREST LAND BURNED IN 21 SAMPLE COUNTIES FOR 
ONE-YEAR AND FIVE-YEAR P ERIODS. 

Gross Forest % Burned Acreage % Burned Acreage Av. Annual Av. Annual 

County Acreage 1 Year Burned 5 Years Burned Burn— % Burn— Acreage 

NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 

Beaufort 363,779 16.7 60,751 53.3 193,894 10.7 38,779 

Bertie 306,916 4.1 12,584 29.3 89,926 5.9 17,985 

Currituck 80,022 3.2 2,560 13.8 11,040 2.8 2,208 

Halifax 239,357 8.6 20,585 17.7 42,605 3.6 8,521 

Tyrrell 213,481 7.5 16,011 55.3 118,055 11.1 23,611 

SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN 

Bladen 425,295 11.9 50,610 36.1 153,532 7.2 30,706 

Harnett 238,134 13.9 33,100 49.1 116,924 9.8 23,385 

Jones 231,931 27.6 64,013 58.0 134,520 11.7 26,904 

Pender 465,111 38.3 178,138 67.0 311,624 13.4 62,325 

Richmond 191,411 7.4 14,164 30.4 58,189 6.1 11,638 

Wayne 175,824 6.0 10,549 21.1 37,099 4.2 7,420 

PIEDMONT 

Caswell 152,842 * 1.7 2,958 .3 519 

Gaston 85,233 * 14.6 12,444 2.9 2,489 

Randolph 303,483 * 7.5 22,761 1.5 4,552 

Wake 309,820 2.8 8,675 11.4 35,319 2.3 7,064 

Yadkin 94,122 * .0 * * * 

MOUNTAINS 

Ashe 91,276 * 4.0 3,651 .8 730 

Buncombe 273,284 * 3.0 8,198 .6 1,640 

Caldwell 220,559 * * * * * 

Graham 172,900 * * * * * 

Jackson 253,252 * * * * * 

* Some burning present, did not encounter any on sample plots dis-tributed in all sections of county. 



Table 22 
ESTIMATED REGIONAL BURN BASED ON 5-YEAR PERIOD PRECEDING THE APPRAISAL. 



Region 



Gross Acreage 
Forest Land 



Total Burn 
5 Yrs. % 



Total Acreage 
Burned 5 Yrs. 



% Burn 
1 Yr. 



Average Annual 
Acreage Burned 



North Coastal Plain 4,140,752 

South Coastal Plain 5,607,685 

Piedmont 5,050,152 

Mountains 3,998,656 

State Totals 18,797,245 



37.8 


1,565,204 


7.6 • 


313,040 


47.0 


2,635,612 


9.4 


527,122 


7.7 


388,862 


1.5 


77,772 


1.2 


47,984 


.2 


9,597 



24.8 



4,669,338 



4.9 



927,521 



(30) 



The vegetation of this region consists of wire grass and 
scrubby oaks on the drier places and a mixture of pepper- 
bush, gallberries, various bays, swamp ironwood, reeds, 
and huckleberries on the more moist sites. 

The soil is low in calcium and, as a result, the vegetation 
has a very high fiber content in the leaves. This high fiber 
content and rapid growth plus the oils and resin typical 
of the above species, creates annually a head-high mass of 
highly inflammable material. It quickly dries, even after 
a downpour, and some claim that the only time during the 
year that a fire season is absent is when it is raining. As 
a result, late spring and summer fires burn with great 
heat and cause a tremendous amount of damage. 

The large, unbroken and, in many cases, seemingly im- 
penetrable tracts of forest land present their own special 
set of conditions. Agricultual land developments follow 
the county road systems and the forest land tends to be 
in large blocks at the center of these highway-surrounded 
sections. The forest land holdings of many owners thus 
come together and form large unbroken tracts. There are 
also many large forest tracts owned by individuals, lum- 
ber companies, and corporations having no connection 
with agricultural land. 

Indiscriminate backfiring of whole blocks of timber in 
self-protection may have pathetic results as in one case in 
Bladen County. The incident was described by a local 
farmer who had assisted in fighting the so-called "back- 
fire." He said, "We found one old Negro woman with two 
crazy daughters holding three scared cows on a little grass 
island in the timbers. The fire and smoke were 'biling' up 
into the elements while they screamed and bellowed in 
fright." 

This fire burned over one ownership of 5,000 acres that 
was surrounded by small farms. When the fire started a 
crew attacked the fire, but adjoining owners immediately 
"protected" their property by backfiring. As a result the 
whole area burned. 

County agents, U. S. Soil Conservation Service techni- 
cians, foresters, lumbermen, and farmers were almost 
unanimous in their opinion that the fire situation could 
not be greatly improved until these areas are opened up so 
that a fire crew can get near the fire and shut it off in a 
small space, instead of backfiring around the whole area. 

The Division of Forestry and Parks believes that a 
strong program of pre-suppression fire line flowing, with 
landowners directly sharing the cost, offers the best single 
answer to this problem of accessibility. Such a program 
is being pushed as rapidly as funds for the necessary 
heavy equipment become available. 

Attitudes of people concerning woods burning vary 
widely. One group, consisting mainly of landowners who 
own timberland, is growing more conscious of the damage 
done by fire and is interested in preventive measures. How- 
ever, many of them are against complete exclusion of fire 
and want winter-burning of their lands as an insurance 
measure against a late spring or early summer "wild" fire. 
Some contend that "fires are worse since the warden pro- 
gram started." They base their contention on the fact that 
where forests are protected for a period of 6-10 years and 
then an accidental fire burns over the area, the accumula- 
tion of litter is such as to cause an almost complete loss of 
trees even 16"-20" in diameter. The landowners contend 
that it is far better to have a slight loss from a winter fire 



than a complete loss from a late spring or early summer 
fire. 

Some landowners are still convinced that winter burn- 
ing is the best insurance against hot spring fires. A defi- 
nite action program will be necessary to convince them 
that they can be adequately protected from "wild" fire. 

What is the attitude of the group consisting of tenant 
farmers, sportsmen and others who are in and around the 
woods, but don't own it? Too often their attitude is one of 
unconcern. Many are not concerned about the future of 
any area and are interested mainly in their own ideas and 
pleasures. It is from this group that the lands of the first 
group must be protected. Intensive education and enforce- 
ment work would be of benefit in dealing with these peo- 
ple. 

In spite of education, enforcement, or other proposals, 
there will still be forest fires. Always there are the ac- 
tivities of irresponsible persons and the effects of acci- 
dents; otherwise, neither police forces nor insurance com- 
panies would be needed. To cope with the situation in 
Eastern North Carolina, the landowners must have out- 
side assistance in suppression work. Outside assistance 
must be furnished in the form of trained fire fighting per- 
sonnel, additional fire towers, and heavy equipment such 
as tractors and fire line plows and pumpers, furnished by 
the State. In addition, the landowner must expend more 
of his own money for maintaining fire breaks. The county 
and state cannot be expected to protect fully the individ- 
ual. He must bear his own share of the cost of producing 
his crop of timber. 

STATE-WIDE FIRE CONTROL 

North Carolina does not have a state-wide fire control 
budget or organization. Each county makes the decision 
as to whether it will take part in fire control work. Co- 
operating counties, through the County Commissioners, 
appropriate money which is matched by state and federal 
funds. In the fiscal year 1945-46 there were 63 cooperating 
counties which appropriated $105,650. The state appropri- 
ation was $187,189; the federal, $164,720. The total budget 
was $469,517. With 12,440,000 acres of forest land under 
protection, the average allotment was about 3.7 cents per 
acre. Approximately 4,500,000 acres of forest land are 
unprotected by organized fire fighting crews. 

It is a well-known fact that present appropriations are 
not adequate to handle the situation. More money for ex- 
pansion is sorely needed if the state is to help solve a very 
trying problem. Lack of fire control has been one of the 
main drawbacks to many forestry developments in this 
state. It has been one of the principal reasons given by 
lumber companies for not acquiring land and endeavoring 
to grow some of their own timber. Fire frequency has also 
been the reason for lack of interest in tree planting on 
large unstocked areas. One farmer in the eastern section 
planted several thousand trees early in the spring and lost 
them to fire before they started to grow. 

What can be done to make the fire protection and sup- 
pression system more effective in this state? The answer 
may be found in adequate state-wide control. 

W. K. Beichler, State Forester of North Carolina, is 
working on a state plan to present to the 1947 Legislature. 
It is recognized that fire hazards are variable in the dif- 
ferent regions of the state and the proposed plan classi- 
fies these regions accordingly. As much as 16 cents an 



(31) 



acre per year is recommended for prevention and sup- 
pression work in the Coastal "ground-burning" counties 
with their large unbroken tracts of timber land, as com- 
pared with 2 cents per acre in the well-broken forest areas 
of the Piedmont. With fire control on a state basis, effort 
can be concentrated where nseded, from the Mountains to 
the Coast. 

The timber resources of North Carolina are a state re- 
sponsibility. As most of the wood-using industries depend 
upon the state as a source of raw material, fire control is 
not entirely a county problem. The method of financing a 
state-wide system must, of course, be determined by the 
General Assembly. Recommendations have been and will be 
made by the Department of Conservation and Develop- 
ment. 

The neighboring states of Virginia and South Carolina 
have recognized the need of state-wide control and have 
established systems to meet their responsibilities. 

CAN FOREST MANAGEMENT MAINTAIN 
PINE? 

COMPARATIVE VALUE OF PINE AND HARDWOOD 
ON "PINE LAND" 

This question has often been asked: Does pine or hard- 
wood produce the greatest return, in volume or value, when 
grown on the so-called "pine land" in the Piedmont and 
Coastal Plain? An exact answer, based on research, has 
evidently not been found. However, most authorities agree 
that the volume produced by pine far exceeds the volume 
produced by hardwoods on the flat "pinelands" and roll- 
ing uplands. Dr. C. F. Korstian, Dean of the School of 
Forestry at Duke University, said : "It is my opinion that 
pine will produce at least two times the volume in the 
same period of time on approximately 80 per cent of the 
land in the Piedmont. The remaining 20 per cent of the 
land, which is located along stream bottoms and draws, is 
suited for good quality hardwood production." 

G. M. Jemison, Silviculturist of the Southeastern Forest 
Experiment Station, believes that pine will outgrow hard- 
wood two to one on at least 75 per cent of the land in the 
Piedmont, but stated he had no figures to prove it. Profes- 
sor H. H. Chapman, of Yale University, dismissed the 
hardwoods on most of the lands in the belt along the east- 
ern coast as "worthless brush" when compared with pine. 

Assuming that pine will produce greater volume per 
acre on these areas, what is the comparative quality of 
the material produced? High quality hardwood logs have a 
greater value, financially, than pine. This being the case, 
is it better to grow hardwood than pine? The answer is 
definitely "No." In the first place, the volume production 
from pine more than offsets any financial gain from qual- 
ity hardwoods and, in the second place, there is very little 
hardwood "quality" production on these areas. 

If the present hardwood forests on the sand ridge, sandy 
loam, and rolling upland areas are any indication of the 
quality to be produced, the state can meet its full re- 
quirements for fuelwood, but not for lumber. The oak, 
hickory, maple, black gum and other hardwood species do 
not produce high, or even medium quality, lumber on these 
areas. 

In an effort to ascertain what proportion of the forest 
lands in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain are better suited 
for the growing of pine than hardwood, plots were care- 



fully examined and the conclusion reached was influenced 
by existing stands, drainage indicator plants, soil, and 
site index. From these field classifications, proportions 
were determined for each of the regions under question. 

The North Coastal Plain shows approximately 40 per 
cent of the region better suited for pine than hardwood; 
the South Coastal Plain 72 per cent; and the Piedmont 
78 per cent. In fact, one might express it more strongly 
and say that the above proportions of forest land are defi- 
nitely unsuited for hardwood production, since they pro- 
duce slow-growing, short-boled, defective trees suitable 
mainly for fuel. 

Thus it is clear that pine in not being grown on those 
areas best suited to it. The hardwoods are moving into the 
pine areas just as Nature intended them to do. The rate 
at which the hardwoods are proceeding in this succession is 
fully discussed under "Reproduction." 

NATURAL SUCCESSION 

What is Nature's intent in the Piedmont and Coastal 
Plain? Natural succession may well start with a bare area 
such as an abandoned field or one exposed by fire. Eco- 
logists point out, and any observer can see for himself, 
that the field is first occupied by low grasses such as crab 
grass. This is followed by the tall weed species and then 
by broom sedge. The broom sedge forms the perfect nurse 
for pine reproduction so that in six to ten years most old 
fields support a fine stand of young pine, if a seed source 
is nearby. Succession then slows down, the pine may ma- 
ture with more or less interference from the hardwoods; 
but as the stand grows older and the pine trees die, one or 
several at a time, their place is not taken by pine seedlings, 
but by hardwoods. The hardwoods are more successful in 
forming an understory and can take over at the expense of 
the pine. Thus by the time the original pines have passed 
from the picture, the area is well-stocked with hardwood 
species that will later form the climatic climax typical 
of the region. This complete succession may take place 
naturally in less than 200 years. 

This natural succession has been quite evident on lands 
owned by the Division of Forestry, N. C. State College. 
One 80-acre tract of virgin loblolly pine was in the last 
stages of pine supremacy before being cut. As individual 
pines died from natural causes their place was being taken 
by oaks and hickories. 

Stands of Virginia pine show even more rapid deteriora- 
tion when the trees are mature. Fully stocked stands on old 
fields may be regenerated, mature, and be displaced by 
hardwood in a period of 100 years. 

SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM 

It has been pointed out, elsewhere in this report, that 
present cutting methods tend to hasten this natural suc- 
cession by removing the overstory of pine. If this is the 
case, what can be done to keep pine on these areas that 
are better suited for growing pine than hardwoods? With 
the present trend toward land stabilization and complete 
exclusion of fire, how can Nature's challenge be met and 
this natural succession halted? 

Three recommendations are offered. Dr. C. F. Korstian, 
Dr. J. V. Hofman, Dr. H. H. Biswell, and others agree on 
the various points, but not necessarily in their application. 

1. Grazing. It has been observed, and some research has 



(32) 



EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE FOREST 
MANAGEMENT 




13. Fire lane on pulp company lands. Made with tractor and Mathis 
plow. Used to divide the property so fire can be reached and confined 
to small area by backfiring. Jones County. 








14. Excellent thinning of immature old-field loblolly stand by farmer 
in Wake County. His product was tobacco wood. 



15. Seed trees and some merchantable growing stock left after cutting 
on lumber company lands in Bertie County. The hardwood brush remains 
a serious bar to reseeding. 

proved, that cattle grazing on forest lands in eastern 
North Carolina favors pine reproduction and also de- 
creases the fire hazard by reducing the accumulation of 
litter. The direct effect of cattle is to remove many com- 
peting hardwoods by browsing and to trample pine seed 
into the ground so that the seed comes in contact with the 
mineral soil. It has been proved that grazing on forest 
lands is profitable under certain conditions and during 
specific seasons. 

However, cattle grazing has its limitations. There is 
room for expansion in the cattle industry, but to increase 
the industry to a point where it would solve the problem 
in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, would mean the use of 
such numbers that it would be impossible to feed the stock 
during the seasons when the forest areas would not sup- 
port them. 

Further research is definitely needed, especially in the 
Piedmont region. Dr. C. M. Kaufman, Associate Professor 
of Forest Research at N. C. State College, is now conduct- 
ing a forest grazing study. No conclusions have been 
reached at this time, as to the effect on pine reproduction. 

More information is needed as to the exact concentra- 
tion of cattle per unit area to accomplish the desired re- 
sults. Also, the use of sheep and goats may well be inves- 
tigated, especially in cleaning tangled areas of brush, 
brambles, and vines. 

2. Cleanings. The bush-axe is a fine silvicultural tool, 
but one that is not used frequently enough at present. 
Many forest areas could be put back into volume produc- 
tion by the removal of brush and sprouts that are sup- 
pressing the pine seedlings already present on the area. 



(33) 



Landowners could well utilize idle farm labor during win- 
ter months for this purpose. It is possible to clean several 
acres per man-day even in very brushy areas. Winter is 
the best time for this work as the brush is more easily 
cut and handled when the leaves are absent. 

This system is very effective where reproduction is 
present, but cannot be recommended as a method of aid- 
ing the re-establishment of pine by natural seeding when 
the area is completely occupied by shrubs and bushes. 
More drastic exposure of the mineral soil is needed when 
the above condition exists. 

3. Fire. The use of fire, fire that is expertly controlled 
as to time, place, and size, is one of the most valuable sil- 
vicultural aids. Observations in the field, plus collateral 
reading, indicate that the use of controlled fire is not only 
desirable, but necessary if pine is to be retained as a com- 
mercial crop in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. 

Several points must also be made quite clear before pro- 
ceeding with a discussion of the use of fire. 

1. The present fire control system must be strengthened, 
especially in the Coastal Plain, so that "wild" fire can 
be controlled. This point cannot be overemphasized. 
Adequate and continuing control of wild fire is abso- 
lutely essential before a program of controlled fire can 
be initiated. 

2. Present fire protection educational efforts should be 
changed to a program that admits the intelligent use of 
fire as a silvicultural tool, while decrying the damage 
done by fire. Modify the present approach to the subject 
and present scientific facts. The N. C. Division of For- 
estry and Parks is already using this new approach on 
a trial basis. Many landowners have seen the beneficial 
effects of light accidental fires on the establishment of 
pine reproduction and have begun to wonder if forest- 
ers know what they are talking about. If foresters lose 
the confidence of landowners, any program will fail. 

3. All hardwood sites must be excluded from such dis- 
cussion. Good hardwood producing areas must have fire 
exclusion at all times. 

4. Last, but not least, it is reasonable to assume that 
the landowner, and those who come in contact with the 
woods, will not use the idea of controlled burning as 
an excuse to burn up the state. A burning permit sys- 
tem, liability laws, and enforcement control are still in 
effect to take care of the irresponsible person. If land- 
owners are shown the value of their timber, both pres- 
ent and future, on a cash basis, they will not willfully 
destroy their assets. Timber values are not yet known 
to many landowners, as evidenced by their method of 
"lump sale" and the destructive cutting allowed on 
their property. More education of a practical nature 
is sorely needed. 

What is the reason for wanting to use controlled fire in 
the first place? How did the pine stands in the Piedmont 
and Coastal Plain originate? The answer to the latter 
question is land abandonment in the Piedmont and fire in 
the Coastal Plain. The fine stands of longleaf pine that 
were found in the Coastal Plain by early settlers were the 
result of fire. Dr. B. W. Wells, Head of the Botany De- 
partment, N. C. State College, in referring to the South- 
eastern Coastal Plain, states: "So universal is fire in the 
area that mature climatic climax communities are un- 
known. All evidence indicates that the extensive pine for- 



ests are fire sub-climaxes. The hypothetical suggestion of- 
fered for the upland climaxes is a dry oak one for the 
deep, coarse sand; moist oak-hickory on the finer sand 
textures; with beech-maple on the moist slope bases. On 
more moist sites, but locations not wet enough to carry 
swamp forest, a characteristic community of red bay, 
sweet gum, red maple and sweet bay may be expected." 

If uncontrolled fire in the past was a factor in the de- 
velopment of fine stands of pine over large areas, it is 
quite reasonable to suppose that even better stands could 
be evolved when fire is used as a tool, intelligently ap- 
plied. 

Lack of research in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of 
North Carolina is a definite handicap at present. The so- 
lution of this problem should be undertaken as soon as pos- 
sible and definite burning procedures established for the 
various topographic types. Rolling uplands, sand hills, fiat 
woods, bays and pocosins should receive separate study 
as no one set of standards will apply for all conditions. It 
may be found that bays and pocosins should be excluded 
from burning altogether. 

Some few experimental burnings have been made, but 
have been quite limited in their extent. Carl G. Krueger, 
Forest Supervisor, Pisgah-Croatan National Forests, 
states: "Some prescribed burning was carried out on the 
Croatan district in 1942. The burning was carefully done, 
but was on a very small scale. No cost figures were kept. 
Heavy fire damage from wildfire, that same spring, large- 
ly nullified some of the work, since some of the areas were 
covered or surrounded by wildfire. Results on these areas 
where identity could be maintained were fairly good. The 
rough was reduced markedly, percentage of brown spot on 
young longleaf pine was reduced, and a good catch of 
seedlings has been obtained. Our burning has been confined 
to the longleaf pine type as fire should be excluded from 
the pocosins or loblolly pine sites." 

Not only does prescribed burning benefit long-leaf pine, 
but when properly used, burning may accomplish the de- 
sired results with loblolly pine as well. Professor H. H. 
Chapman, School of Forestry, Yale University, has shown 
that fire can be used to advantage in loblolly pine stands 
in Arkansas and West Louisiana, and has made specific 
recommendations for its use on certain industrial forest 
areas in North Carolina. If these recommendations are 
carried out, the results will be most interesting to all con- 
cerned. 

It is not possible to make definite statements on con- 
trolled burning procedures in this state. Procedures de- 
veloped in other sections might well apply here, either in 
modified form or in the same form. Men must be trained 
to carry out any controlled burning program, or it will fail 
from the start. Many an owner in the Deep South has too 
quickly assumed that controlled burning was an easy mat- 
ter, with the result that he burned up many dollars worth 
of timber. 

REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL TIMBER 
CUTTING 

The idea of regulating timber cutting has been talked 
about for many years in America. Proponents of regula- 
tion have been more vociferous in the last 10 years than 
in all preceding years. The U. S. Forest Service is clamor- 
ing for national regulatory legislation and seems to have 



(34) 



gained the support of many members of Congress. Legis- 
latures in many of the important timber states have had 
the proposition before them in recent years. The majority 
have either felt that a particular measure was not the 
right one, or that there was not enough support for it at 
the time. A number of states are believed to have adopted 
timber-cutting regulations that will produce the results 
intended. 

Any American attempt at regulation of timber-cutting 
is bound to be an experiment, at first. Imperfections and 
failures should be expected until it is learned what is 
needed and what will work in different parts of the United 
States. A state is not to be criticized if its first attempt is 
discovered to have weaknesses. 

A great many landowners, timbermen, county officials, 
business leaders, agricultural workers, and foresters were 
questioned to learn what they think about public regula- 
tion of commercial timber-cuting in North Carolina. The 
idea of any rules to be enforced on forest landowners was 
dismissed, because there are over 200,000 of them in North 
Carolina, mostly farmers, and administration of rules in- 
volving various kinds of cutting by so many people would 
be simply too big a job for any agency that could be em- 
powered to handle it. Rather, some kind of supervision of 
the cutting of trees or buying of logs by commercial ope- 
rators was proposed. This would include sawmill men, 
pulpwood contractors and buyers of veneer logs, crossties, 
poles, and such commercial products as may be deemed 
necessary. This approach seems more practicable, as there 
are only about 3,000 of these commercial operators. 

It was not assumed that regulation was needed. Infor- 
mation was sought from examination of woods conditions, 
and from informed sources, as well as from the general 
public. 

CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN REGULATION 

The majority of those interviewed were in favor of 
"something being done about the timber cutting." From 
records of interviews, the following examples show the 
different kinds of opinion: 

Soil Conservation Service Technician: "There is strong 
feeling in the county that something should be done to 
stop mills from coming in and cutting everything on a 
place." 

County Commissioner and portable sawmill operator: 
"Rules about timber-cutting might be all right if they were 
enforced fairly, but I don't approve of government inter- 
fering with business. The woods do need to be laid off of 
awhile." 

Deputy Sheriff and farmer; community leaders (Ques- 
tion by consultant) "Would people in this county support 
laws to. stop close cutting of timber?" (Answer) "Yes, 
they would." (Question) "Sure they wouldn't yell about 
their rights? You know, people are complaining about so 
many regulations." (Answer) "Yes, understand that. But 
we've got to do something about our timber." 

Tax Collector: "I don't know what should be done about 
timber-cutting." 

Big Lumberman: "Against further regulations at this 
time. Might be interested later when something is worked 
out to reduce fires." (Note: This is a coastal county where 
fires are bad.) 

Tobacco Farmer: "Need a government law to stop 
woods being murdered by lumber and pulp companies. It's 



a sight how they cut it close an' knock down what they 
don't cut. We need a law also to protect a feller from his 
tenants. Always want to cut the best trees. Leave if you 
get after them." 

Medium Lumberman: "Regulation is needed." (Further 
conversation revealed his timber supply was being limited 
by pulp cutting. Possibly he felt regulation would slow 
down pulp cutting.) 

Big Lumberman: "Educate. I don't think it is right for 
the state or federal government to tell a man which trees 
he may cut on land that he is supposed to own." 

Veneer and Lumber Manufacturer : "We favor regula- 
tion." 

The above are fair examples of opinions offered by 
farmers, lumbermen, landowners, and county leaders gen- 
erally. Asked if their counties would show enough sup- 
port to make it worth-while to try regulation, S. C. S. 
technicians were equally divided in opinion. In general, 
people whose activities would be little touched by timber- 
cutting regulations, such as farmers, businessmen, and the 
general public as represented by town and city people 
would favor regulations. These people believe in a general 
way that the woods are being hacked to pieces and that 
something should be done. Their ideas as to how timber 
ought to be cut, however, are just as likely to be wrong as 
right, because they don't know. Practically all of them 
would condemn clean, heavy cuting as destructive. Yet in 
many cases this might be good forestry. 

Lumbermen are divided on the question. Generally, the 
portable sawmiller and the concentration yard man are 
against restrictions. The kind of cutting regulations al- 
most everyone thinks of would require a considerable 
number of smaller trees to be left, and this would severely 
curtail the operations of many portable mills. 

In discussing regulation, there was no attempt to dis- 
cuss details as to how much would or would not be cut, 
nor to indicate the level of publication regulation — State 
or Federal. 

The pulp mills appear willing to accept regulation; at 
least representatives of two large companies so indicated. 
They stipulated that it should be state regulation; they 
would oppose federal regulation. Pulp mills have been 
much criticized due to heavy cutting of small pines by con- 
tractors. One of the defense arguments is, "Why should 
we leave merchantable trees? The landowner may turn 
around and allow a 'peckerwood' sawmill to cut them all 
later." Sawmills use the same argument. No one cares to 
leave merchantable trees for the future, because it is 
claimed that some one else will get them. 

The timber game does not have any rules or referees; 
anything goes. If this is resulting in damage to forest pro- 
duction, and it is feasible to do something about it, then 
the public does seem to have a duty in the matter. Appar- 
ently, most states are beginning to see it in that light, as 
regulatory proposals keep coming to the legislative bodies 
of timber states. 

REGULATION WILL NOT BE SIMPLE 

Early in the investigation, it was shown that people do 
not relaize just how complicated a set of forest cutting 
rules might be. Americans have a blind faith that a new 
law will correct almost any situation. In this case, the dif- 
ficulties to be encountered should be understood in advance, 
so that proposals will be carefully considered. 



(35) 



Some county workers of the U. S. Soil Conservation 
Service, who do forestry work with landowners, seemed to 
understand the complications, as most foresters do who 
"stay in the woods." Thinking of this, one forester said, 
"When foresters move out of the woods to town, the an- 
swers are much simpler and more easily arrived at." Said 
one Soil Conservation worker near the coast, "Regulation 
might be desirable, but how can anything workable be de- 
veloped here? There are so many different conditions. The 
rules would be full of loopholes." 

In the woods, there often are situations where the need- 
ed measures would be hard to fit into general rules. It is 
somewhat discouraging to note that many people seem to 
overlook this feature. 

The Southeastern Section of the Society of American 
Foresters appointed a committee to draft a set of cutting 
practice rules that would be a desirable minimum. The U. 
S. Forest Service has an outline also, somewhat similar. 
The average timber operator would not be able to inter- 
pret either of them and thereby guide his cutting to meet 
the standards. The rules are not unduly complicated, but 
there are too many conditions to be covered. The Society 
Committee stresses the fact that the rules are necessarily 
somewhat flexible and would be held up as a guide only 
where a forester or forestry-trained man was not in 
charge of the cutting. If the practices were under direction 
of a forester, the regulatory body would then pass on his 
system to see if it met the objectives of the law. 

It is believed that these cutting rules would make it nec- 
essary for a forester to oversee all cuttings. They apply to 
both pines and hardwoods. They specify, for example, that 
certain desirable hardwoods should not be cut if under 17 
inches at the stump; that good pine should not be cut if 
under 15 inches at the stump, unless numerous; that 
smaller pines should be left to the number of 80 per acre; 
and so on, with various conditions stated under which dif- 
ferent specifications would apply, including clear-cutting. 

The fact that these proposed rules envisage a forestry- 
trained individual planning and checking on commercial 
timber harvesting, should enable the objectives of a regu- 
latory act to be met in any timber condition in a sensible 
manner. How to make available, or in other ways obtain 
the technical guidance that would be necessary is a matter 
concerning which few suggestions have been made to date. 
No doubt this could be worked out if enough support could 
be obtained for the plan. 

Let no one suppose that timbermen are universally op- 
posed to a thorough-going set-up, such as the one proposed. 
One lumber man said, "Each county should have its own 
forester, paid % by the state and % by the county. After 
the public is educated, give him a whip hand. 'Any timber 
sold in ■ county, not in accordance with county forest- 
er's recommendation, should be subject to special tax of 5 
per cent of the sales price." Another said, "Although we 
are snowed under by government regulations, we would 



be glad to comply with any laws enacted for the purpose of 
conserving and improving our timber resources." 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The data obtained indicate that pine restocking is being 
damaged by cutting, and that it is desirable to consider 
regulatory action. 

The discussion of the relative values of pine and hard- 
wood growth in the section on Management explains the 
importance of using every feasible means to maintain pine 
in our forests. The section headed "Degree of Satisfactory 
Stocking" presents data showing the unmistakeable trend 
toward hardwoods on former pine lands. 

Almost all timbermen think of regulation as a set of 
rules with considerably more complications and prohibi- 
tions than those believed necessary to reserve pine seed 
sources. There were a number of opinions given as indicat- 
ing that seed tree regulation might be widely acceptable. 
It would be argued that merely leaving seed trees will not 
insure pine reproduction. That is true in many cases. But, 
at least, a source of seed will be preserved so that the 
owner will have something with which to work. 

Seed trees would be a great benefit in Coastal forest 
areas where frequent fires kill back the hardwoods. As it 
is, with fires killing the hardwoods, and pine seed sources 
being removed, such areas are doomed. 

The data does not indicate urgent need now for rules 
applying to hardwood cutting. Hardwood sawtimber is not 
decreasing, and cordwood-size material is increasing. 

If a regulatory plan which put a forestry-trained person 
on the ground to plan or to approve cuttings could be 
adopted, that would take care of the situation described. 
However, in the event the more complete plan cannot be 
put into practice, it is felt that seed tree legislation might 
'well be considered by itself. 

This point should be stressed. No legislation is likely to 
have success in the United States unless a majority of 
those to be affected support it. Nothing can be accomp- 
lished unless enough sawmill and pulp men will themselves 
put their influence behind a plan. 

TAX SITUATION ON FOREST LAND 

It has been stated by some individuals and companies 
that the high tax rate on forest land is one of the draw- 
backs to their practice of forestry. They state that it is 
better for some one else to own the land, and grow the 
timber. The company will buy the logs. 

Just what is the situation in North Carolina? In the 
first place, timber is classed as real estate in the eyes of 
the lawyers and tax assessors. Timber cannot intelligently 
be classified as real estate unless corn, potatoes, cotton, 
and tobacco are also included. Timber is a crop. It pro- 
duces material annually that is added to the crop of the 
year before, the sum of the annual crops being harvested 
when conditions warrant. To the tax assessor the land 
should be the assessable feature, not the timber. 



Table 24 



Region 


Tax 
Rate 


% Real 
Value 


Timberland 


Cut-over 
Timberland 


Waste 
Land 


Agricultural 
Land 




$1.30 


62 


$15.00 


$ 7.00 


$ 4.00 


$48.00 




95 


66 


28.00 


13.00 


7.00 


34.00 




1.50 


62 


25.00 


6.00 


3.00 


50.00 



(36) 



Agricultural lands assume value on the basis of what 
they will produce. This is not true of forest land. Forest 
lands are given a value depending on what is present on 
the land. The forest land areas are classified in some coun- 
ties as timberland or cut-over timberland, the latter hav- 
ing the lesser value. In other counties, forest land is con- 
sidered along with agricultural land and an average figure 
per acre is the basis for the assessment. In some counties 
timberland has a higher assessed value than agricultural 
land. 

In spite of the unfairness of the classification to owners 
of large timber tracts, taxes are not unduly high in many 
counties, the eastern counties having the fairest assess- 
ment on timberlands. 

Average land valuations for tax purposes are shown in 
Table 24. These figures were compiled from 40 sample 
counties. 

Present tax laws can be made to work fairly if they are 
properly administered. Inequalities frequently arise from 
the present assessment policies which do not consider the 
productive capacity of timberland as compared to agricul- 
tural land. 

Generally speaking, examples of excessive taxation on 
large timber tracts have not been noted. Such cases do 
exist, but there is also a tendency on the part of many 
people to complain about taxes merely as a matter of prin- 
ciple. Some farmers in the Piedmont have the most cause 
for complaint when their forest land is assessed at the 
same value as their agricultural land. 

THE TIMBER VOLUME BALANCE SHEET 

The Forest Resource Appraisal did not attempt a study 
of growth based on new field data. The information pre- 
sented on this subject is from the thorough study by the 
U. S. Forest Survey in 1937 and 1938. No other estimates 
of growth in North Carolina are available. 

Table 23 shows that during the seven-year period, 1937 
through 1943, the average annual net growth of sawtimber 
material was 2,311,000 M. bd. ft. Nearly three-fourths of 



the sawtimber growth was made by pine; over one-fourth 
was made by hardwoods and cypress. The table shows how 
this growth is distributed among the four regions. 

Sawtimber growth apparently has not declined, although 
the total amount of sawtimber volume has declined. The 
reason for this is that heavy cutting of sawtimber trees 
has, in effect, swapped large trees for smaller ones. The 
smaller trees produce wood at a more rapid rate. It is 
pointed out, however, that the quality of the sawtimber 
growth on smaller trees is not equal in value to the same 
volume of wood on larger trees. 

According to Forest Survey calculations, sawtimber 
growth was a litle higher in 1943 than in 1937. Three 
regions are figured to have shared in the gain, only the 
Piedmont showing a decrease in sawtimber growth. All 
changes are negligible. 

The growth estimates for all sound trees 5.0 inches 
d.b.h., and larger, include sawlog trees, upper stems of 
pine sawlog trees (but not hardwoods), and sound under- 
sawlog-size trees. The rate of growth of the sound-tree 
growing stock increased in the period from 1937 through 
1943, all regions showing a gain except the North Coastal 
Plain. 

Average Net Growth per Acre. Based on the stands 
present in 1937 and 1938, the Forest Survey calculated the 
net sawtimber growth for the average wooded acre in 
North Carolina to be 131 board feet. Loblolly pine types 
averaged over 200 board feet per acre while upland hard- 
woods were lowest, being under 70 (This fact emphasizes 
the desirability of growing pine where feasible on upland 
sites, as stressed elsewhere in this report). By regions, 
average growth per acre was 163, 128, 149, and 72, board 
feet for the North Coastal Plain, South Coastal Plain, 
Piedmont, and Mountains, respectively. 

Average growth per acre for the total sound-tree grow- 
ing stock was about % cord for the state as a whole. It 
ranged from .41 cord in the Mountains to .68 cord in the 
Piedmont. 

Growth estimates are of necessity based on calculations. 



Table 23. 

FOREST GROWTH COMPARED WITH COMMODITY DRAIN* 

Annual average based on 7 year period 1937 through 1943 

AVERAGE NET ANNUAL GROWTH 

All Sound Trees 
Sawtimber 5.0" D.B.H. and Larger 

Pine Hardwoods Total Pine Hardwoods Total 

(Million Board Feet) (Thousand Cords) 

N. Coastal Plain 477 174 651 1,228 742 1,970 

S. Coastal Plain 554 154 708 1,793 751 2,544 

Piedmont 507 191 698 2,167 1,201 3,368 

Mountains 107 147 254 448 980 1,428 

State 1.645 666 2,311 5,636 3,674 9,310 

AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMODITY DRAIN 

N. Coastal Plain 442 156 598 1,387 538 1,925 

S. Coastal Plain 477 170 647 1,597 672 2,269 

Piedmont 686 170 856 2,450 798 3,248 

Mountains 112 167 279 413 697 1,110 

State • 1,717 663 2,380 5,847 2,705 8,552 

Cypress is included with hardwoods. 

* From Forest Survey Release No. 18, "N. C. Forest Growth and Drain 1937-1943," by J. W. Cruikshank and A. D. Toler. 



(37) 



Borings in thousands of stems determine the rate at which 
trees increase in volume. Through other phases of a growth 
study the mortality drain is computed and deducted to ar- 
rive at net growth. Growth rate changes as timber stands 
change in character. 

A repeated inventory affords a rough check on the 
growth calculations, provided that commodity drain is 
known. The Forest Resource Appraisal in North Carolina 
found 6% less sawtimber than was found in 1938. This 
compares reasonably with the volume arrived at by project- 
ing growth and deducting the commodity drain. The Ap- 
praisal estimates of sawtimber are somewhat lower in the 
Coastal Plain than would result from the projection of 
growth and drain. It is believed that drain was heavier 
than it has been figured. This would account for the dif- 
ference. 

STATE FORESTS 
Are more public forests needed in North Carolina? This 
question raised opinions of approval and disapproval in 
the various regions of the state. 

People, generally, seem to favor the additional acquisi- 
tion of public forests in the Mountains. Many individuals 
have come in contact with the National Forests and 
National Parks through the medium of recreation. Many 
are not acquainted with the policies of forest management 
on either the National Forests or National Parks, but as 
these areas have a high esthetic value the people are in 
favor of further acquisition. 

Lumber companies have, in the past, welcomed the idea 
of selling their cutover lands to the Federal Government. 
This trend continues and, as a result, more land will likely 
be acquired in the Mountains for National Forests. 

In the Piedmont, various community leaders did not 
think that public ownership was feasible due to the absence 
of large, unbroken timber growing areas. Units large 
enough for National Forest Ranger Districts are practical- 
ly nonexistent. However, the opinion was expressed that 
state forests could well be established in several sections of 
the Piedmont. These forest areas should be established to 
show landowners the best methods of managing their 
timber growing areas. The educational value of these 
demonstration forests would more than pay for the cost 
of establishment. There are forest lands in the Piedmont 
that are suitable for State Demonstration Forests and it 
is hoped that sentiment will develop for their purchase. 

The Coastal Plain has many areas of variable size that 
seem suited to public ownership. Here, again, state owner- 
ship was suggested for all areas with the exception of the 
Great Dismal Swamp. Lumber and pulp companies are 
more interested in the "better" types of timber growing 
land. The state could well afford to acquire lands in the 
Coastal Section. Certain pocosins, sand ridges, and swamp 
areas are well suited for public ownership. These areas 
are not attractive to lumber and pulp companies at present, 
but do have future value for timber production if placed 
under protection. Here, again, demonstration of forestry 
practices would be of untold value in showing landowners 
what could be done with these unattractive areas. 

It is believed that the State of North Carolina should 
own and operate State Forests for timber production and 
demonstration. These State Forests should be located 
chiefly in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain as it is too late 
to compete with the Federal Government in much of the 
Mountain region. 



North Carolina can hardly afford to stand by and al- 
low more of her potentially good forest lands to be taken 
up by the Federal Government. There are too many ad- 
vantages in state ownership. With State Forests go pres- 
tige, training facilities for personnel, proving grounds for 
techniques, demonstration and research areas, an influence 
with personnel which makes the job more interesting to the 
men, and, last, but not least, financial returns. 

Probably there are few fields in which the Southern 
States are losing their birthrights so rapidly as in the 
matter of forest lands. Once the Federal Government ac- 
quires these lands, there is the danger that the people of 
the state will have no further responsibility and little in- 
fluence in connection with them. It is just that much of the 
state's territory lost. State sovereignty has lost in a field 
where its manifestations should be strong. 

There are plenty of precedents establishing the wisdom 
of state forests. Several states have had state forests for 
more than forty years and are continually expanding. 
These states realize the value of their forest areas and 
have acted accordingly. New York owns approximately 3 
million acres; Michigan owns over 3 million acres; Penn- 
sylvania owns over 2 million acres ; Minnesota, Oregon and 
Washington all own over one million acres of state forest 
lands. Most of the state forests in the United States have 
been created from cut-over lands and on them are found 
some of the best forestry practices in the country. These 
forests have been highly successful and have won public 
favor. 

EDUCATION OF FOREST LANDOWNERS 

Nearly 17 million acres of North Carolina's forest land 
are in the hands of private owners. Since, as in agricul- 
ture, the manner in which the crop is handled affects the 
yield, it is in the interest of the general welfare to inform 
these owners regarding good practices, and to assist and 
encourage them by all suitable means. Cotton farmers have 
been enabled to double their yields per acre through appli- 
cation of scientific practices brought to them by agricul- 
tural teaching, extension service and research. It is not too 
much to hope that over a long period of years timber 
owners with reasonably good forest land can be led to 
double their timber yields. 

In using the term "education" it is intended to include 
various kinds of assistance which have developed in con- 
nection with farm programs; not merely giving a talk or 
handing out a circular, but service in marketing, planning, 
and other ways. 

STATUS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT 

Public forests. Forest maangement is well developed 
on the one existing state forest, and beginnings have been 
made on a large state game refuge near the coast. The 
84,000 acre forest of N. C. State College is being managed 
on an intensive basis, and all costs, including purchase 
price of the land, are being met from income made by the 
forest. Watershed forests of municipalities are protected 
from fire, but are usually not under management, the 
present policy on most of them being to refrain from tim- 
ber cutting. 

National forests are said to have intensive management 
and are well protected from fire. It has been difficult to 
make much progress with scientific forestry on the three- 
quarters of a million acres of national forests in the 



(38) 



Mountains. They are hardwood forests and, like hardwood 
forest everywhere in the state, contain so much low-grade 
and cull material that growth of better trees is impeded. 
It seems likely that yields of timber on national forests 
have improved little, if any, over yields on similar private 
lands. They may have more timber because they cut less. 
Selective cutting seems to be Forest Service policy for 
these forests, and must undoubtedly be one good way to 
harvest, but numbers of foresters will argue that clear 
cutting is just as good or better for Mountain hardwoods. 
They point out that the best hardwood stands in the Moun- 
tains, excepting old fields, both on national forests and on 
private lands, are on the areas cut most completely years 
ago. The national forests are building up their stands. 
This would seem to be an appropriate function of public 
forests; to hold a good volume of timber for periods of 
emergency. 

Industrial Owners. They own over 1% million acres 
in North Carolina, mostly in the Coastal Plain. Pulp mills, 
with over % million acres, are either practising intensive 
forestry or preparing to do so. They employed 13 foresters 
in North Carolina in 1944, three times as many as the 
more numerous lumber companies. Pulp companies cut 
their lands conservatively (much land is not being cut at 
all) and are trying to protect them from fire. This latter 
problem is the more troublesome for them because their 
holdings are scattered. 

Lumber companies own over % million acres. Of this 
acreage, however, not over % can be credited with inten- 
sive management; that is, systematic management aimed 
at increasing yields. At least % million acres are in the 
hands of companies which have "cut out" and are still 
holding the lands, undecided what to do next; or are still 
cutting without particular efforts toward better practices. 
There are two large lumber concerns in eastern North 
Carolina that seem to be energetically pushing ahead with 
land purchases and purposeful forestry practices. A num- 
ber of smaller mills are working along the same line, and 
many more are becoming convinced that they should. Most 
industrial owners are trying to protect their lands from 
fire, although with some the effort does not lead to fire 
lines, etc. on the ground. 

Farm and Investment Ownerships. These two groups 
own about 15 million acres of forest land. Possibly % of 
the acreage is in holdings over 500 acres in size; most 
of the others are less than 100 acres. As one moves west- 
ward from the coast, average size of the forest ownerships 
becomes smaller. 

County agents, U. S. Soil Conservation Service techni- 
cians, and public foresters were asked how these private, 
non - industrial owners are managing their woods. 
These men who know their country landowners are not 
inclined to credit more than 7 or 8 percent with intensive 
management. To earn this rating an owner would be the 
sort who cuts culls for firewood, tries to protect from fire, 
and either designates the trees to be cut in commercial 
sales, or in some definite way makes provision for another 
good crop of timber. 

It must be said that these ratings are apt to be confus- 
ing. In judging a farmer's woods work, foresters or agri- 
cultural workers are naturally going to judge his work 
according to whether or not he is following their pre- 
scriptions. Very often a farmer following no particular 



prescription at all happens to have the best timber stands 
in the country. He may have an old field pine stand, or he 
may have cleancut for tobacco wood by small patches and 
got perfect reproduction of pine or desirable hardwoods. 
It is felt that in most counties owners have little better 
than 7 or 8 percent of their stands in fairly good con- 
dition. 

The rating, however, can be said to indicate the number 
of owners who will today get out and pursue positive mea- 
sures to improve their woods. 

Questionnaires and personal contacts with the above 
farm advisors brought out the fact that they think about 
% of their woodlands suffer from destructive cutting ; that 
is, cutting that makes no provision for the next crop and 
supposedly leaves the land in poorer shape to grow another 
crop. 

According to results from plots taken on timber cuttings, 
slightly over 50 percent showed destructive cutting prac- 
tices, especially as to the removal of all pine seed sources. 

Another type of damage arises from the over-cutting of 
small trees that are just reaching the stage when new 
volume production is greatest. 

It will be apparent from reading this report that there 
is very little forest management being practiced in the 
state which is effective in regenerating pine, except where 
pine comes in on abandoned fields, from grazed areas, 
or accidental disturbances. Therefore, the recommenda- 
tions being offered to landowners do not offer a solution 
to one of the principal problems. Forestry agencies are 
becoming more aware of this fact and it is a certainty that 
efforts will be redoubled to develop lines of approach 
that will maintain pine. Research has not been active 
enough on the most critical problems that confront private 
owners. 

EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS TO DATE 

Extension Service. Great progress has been made in 
forestry educational work since R. W. Graeber was ap- 
pointed Extension Forester of North Carolina in 1925. For 
ten years he carried on educational work with farmers, 
working alone insofar as the Extension Service was con- 
cerned until 1935, when an Assistant Extension Forester 
was appointed. Regular Extension Service educational 
work was followed by demonstrations and meetings of 
farmers, and information disseminated by mail. 

In December, 1942, the Farm Forestry Program was 
initiated and six field men were added to the staff. This 
program was developed to assist farmers and to aid the 
war effort. Farmers were assisted in the systematic man- 
agement of their forest lands to keep them productive. 
They were aided in the making of timber sale contracts, 
finding markets and buyers for their products, and in the 
development of marketing cooperatives when needed. 

The war effort was aided by making a great deal more 
lumber and pulp material available for use, material that 
otherwise might not have been utilized due to lack of know- 
ledge of markets or procedures. 

This program has been continued and extended. There 
are now eight Farm Foresters working in 31 counties and 
the program not only includes the above points concerning 
marketing, but also technical assistance and planning is 
now offered in thinning and stand improvement, selective 
harvest of merchantable timber, pruning, planting, and 
protection from fire, diseases, and insects. 



(39) 



Not only farmers, but some mill operators realize the 
value of the program. Graeber said, "A large number of 
mill operators are working closely with our farm foresters 
and are seeking their help. They often refer timber owners 
to the forester before buying." 

For the fiscal year 1944-45, the Farm Foresters gave 
assistance in timber marketing to 686 farmers who sold 
$708,006 worth of material from 73,337 acres of forest 
land. Timber was actually marked and volume determined 
on 415 farms or 24,846 acres. The volume marked was 68 
million board feet of sawtimber and 12,392 cords of pulp- 
wood and miscellaneous products. 

Further educational value was obtained through the 
spread of influence in a community by people observing 
and discussing work of this type. 

Present plans call for the further development of the 
Farm Forestry Program within the next 10 years. This is 
now in North Carolina a cooperative project between the 
Extension Service (State and Federal), and the U. S. 
Forest Service. 

DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT 
OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Educational work of this division, the state government's 
chief forestry agency, consists of several phases. Fire pro- 
tection education work follows the general trend with talks 
to schools, radio talks from various local stations, showing 
of motion pictures to schools and civic groups, and the use 
of fire protection posters and literature. During the 1944 
calendar year, 614 schools were visited by division person- 
nel. 

Various forestry services and advice are given to the 
absentee, investment, industrial and other owners of forest 
land. Federal funds, disbursed through the U. S. Forest 
Service, join state and county funds in this overall pro- 
gram. 

The Bladen Lakes State Forest in Bladen County is be- 
ing intensively managed as a demonstration of forestry 
on submarginal land. All phases of management are under- 
way. Forest products of all types are being systematically 
grown and harvested. Two recreational centers have been 
established and two lakes developed for fishing. Regulated 
deer hunting in cooperation with the Game Division is 
now underway. 

Further educational work has been undertaken in co- 
operation with the Vocational Agriculture teachers in vari- 
ous counties. In Wilson County, four units of 10 acres 
each have been established as school demonstration forests. 
The units have been donated and deeds are held by the 
Board of Education. Units have been established in four 
Mountain counties, but the lands are still in private owner- 
ship. This program was curtailed by the war, but is to be 
revived on a larger scale. A forester on the State For- 
ester's staff is assigned full-time to Information and Edu- 
cation activities corelation. 

U. S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 

In 1944 there were seven foresters employed by the 
U. S. Soil Conservation Service in North Carolina. These 
men were not employed as foresters, but were used in the 
general farm program. However, the forestry-trained con- 
servationists have worked forestry practices into farm 
plans and have been responsible for assisting many farm- 



ers in the development of their forest lands through im- 
provement cuttings and tree planting. 

Tennessee Valley Authority. At present, the T.V.A. 
(Dept. of Forestry Relations) has three foresters working 
within the Tennessee Valley in North Carolina. This or- 
ganization cooperates with state, local, and other federal 
agencies. For the past seven years they have been assisting 
timber land owners in forest management and tree plant- 
ing in an effort to decrease erosion on T.V.A. watersheds 
and for the past two years, T.V.A. foresters have been 
developing detailed individual management plans for cer- 
tain demonstration farms. These foresters also work in 
cooperation with the N. C. Division of Forestry and Parks 
in giving technical assistance to absentee, investment, in- 
dustrial and other owners on lands within the Tennessee 
Valley in North Carolina. 

Farmers' Federation, Asheville, North Carolina. Two 
foresters are employed, one working on the marketing of 
pulpwood in an effort to obtain as much volume as possible 
to meet present demands by encouraging thinning and 
cutting; the other working with individual owners to 
develop a systematic management, harvesting and market- 
ing program. Management agreements are signed with the 
timber owners and all future cutting is handled by the 
Farmers' Federation. This work is carried out on a com- 
mission basis, with further assistance from a Charles L. 
Pack Forestry Foundation grant. 

Farm Security Administration. Under the Tenant Pur- 
chase Program of the F.S.A., some forestry educational 
work has been practiced with the cooperation of the Ex- 
tension Service, Farm Foresters, and Management Assist- 
ants of the N. C. Division of Forestry and Parks. A num- 
ber of cutting plans have been developed for individual 
farms and some very effective work has been done, as the 
F.S.A. controls farm and forest practices on farms as long 
as loans are in force. In spite of this "enforced" education, 
however, some owners have liquidated their timber to pay 
their mortgages. 

THE NORTH CAROLINA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 

The North Carolina Forestry Association is "A Volun- 
tary Association of Persons and Organizations Interested 
in the Protection and Fuller Development of North Caro- 
lina's Forest and Game Resources." This organization is 
very active and has developed a broad forestry and natural 
resources program to assist in keeping North Carolina's 
forest lands productive. Educational efforts of the Asso- 
ciation deal with the development of community forests 
by counties, towns, and cities, an enlarged program of 
farm and industrial forestry education and service, a 
broadening of the public interest in forests through the 
public schools, and adequate facilities for the teaching of 
forestry at North Carolina State College and Duke 
University. 

SCHOOL OF FORESTRY, DUKE UNIVERSITY 

The School of Forestry, although engaged mainly in the 
professional training of technical foresters on a graduate 
level, maintains contacts with private and owners through 
the operation of the Duke Forest. 

The Duke Forest, located in Durham and Orange Coun- 
ties, consists of three main units; namely, the Durham, 
New Hope Creek, and Hillsboro divisions. The total area of 
the Forest is now over 7,000 acres. Situated on the lower 



(40) 



Piedmont Plateau at elevations ranging from 280 to 650 
feet, and composed of second-growth shortleaf and loblolly 
pines, oak, gum, hickory, yellow poplar, ash, and other 
hardwoods, the Forest is representative of the various 
types of timber growth found throughout the region. 

Besides serving as an outdoor laboratory for the School 
of Forestry, the Forest is managed with the objective of 
demonstrating the various methods of timber growing, 
timber stand treatment, and forest management applicable 
to the region and of developing it as an experimental for- 
est for research in the problems of timber growing and in 
the sciences basic thereto. 

The development of the Forest as a demonstration of 
practical forest management is well advanced. Forest type 
and timber stand maps are available for each of the three 
divisions and a detailed soils map is being prepared. Each 
division has been subdivided into permanent compartments 
and plans for the treatment of each stand have been made. 

Various products are harvested each year such as saw- 
timber, poles and piling, veneer bolts, pulpwood, Christmas 
trees, ornamental stock, and decorative material. Cutting 
operations, within the limits of annual growth, are so 
designed as to illustrate approved forestry practices such 
as selective cuttings, strip cuttings, seed tree cuttings, 
thinnings, improvement cuttings, conversion operations, 
and many others. These operations serve the dual purpose 
of contributing to the development of the Forest as a going 
business and of demonstrating sound forestry practices. 
Land owners, farmers, and others interested in seeing and 
learning about these forestry demonstrations visit the For- 
est singly or in groups. 

DIVISION OF FORESTRY, N. C. STATE COLLEGE 

The Division of Forestry is primarily engaged in the 
training of technically trained foresters; however, educa- 
tional contacts with private land owners are maintained 
through the various forest areas owned or operated by the 
Division. 

The Hill Demonstration Forest of 1,500 acres, located hi 
Durham County, is primarily a research forest. Many 
sample plots have been planted that demonstrate various 
spacings of loblolly, shortleaf and Virginia pines. A num- 
ber of thinning plots in Virginia pine have been established 
to show silvicultural methods of handling this species, and 
thinning plots in hardwood for fuel and improvement have 
been initiated. 

The Hofmann Forest of 80,000 acres located in Jones 
and Onslow Counties is owned by the N. C. Forestry Foun- 
dation and operated by the Division of Forestry. Various 
commercial operations dealing with pulpwood and log pro- 
duction are underway. A completely equipped weather sta- 
tion has been established on the forest by the N. C. Experi- 
ment Station in connection with fire studies. Forest graz- 
ing studies on a commercial scale are being conducted by 
the Department of Animal Husbandry, N. C. State College, 
U. S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Animal Industry, 
Washington, D. C, on a cooperative basis. 

Other units on which forestry work and demonstration 
are well underway are the Richlands Creek area of 300 
acres in Wake County and the Hope Valley Forest of 1700 
acres located in Chatham County. 

It can be seen, from the above discussion of agencies 
concerned with forestry education, that this type of work 



is and has been steadily progressing since appointment 
of J. S. Holmes as first State Forester in 1909. This phase 
of forestry is, however, far from being adequate. There 
are thousands of landowners who have been contacted in no 
way whatsoever. It is estimated, by various agencies, that 
at least 25 percent of the owners of private forest lands 
would not respond to forestry education and assistance if 
offered. Forestry education should be expanded, however, 
so as to reach the other 75 percent. If this could be ac- 
complished, North Carolina's future timber needs would 
be insured. Education should be given a fair chance before 
concluding that government regulation is the only solu- 
tion to the problem of keeping our forest lands productive. 
In 1943, approximately 1,600 million board feet of lum- 
ber were cut from the 17 million acres of privately owned 
land. Of this amount, probably 300 million board feet were 
cut under the influence of some educational work, either 
by actual marking, advice or demonstration. The remain- 
ing 1,300 million board feet were cut for no reason except 
to make money. Can it thus be said that forestry educa- 
tional work has been given a fair trial? 

ALLOWABLE CUT FOR NEXT 10-YEAR PERIOD 
1946-55 

During the past 10 years North Carolina forests have 
grown 23 billion board feet of sawtimber material. It is 
estimated that nearly 24 billion board feet of sawtimber 
material has been removed from these forests. Possibly, 
too, the drain has been higher than estimated. 

How much sawtimber material can be safely removed 
in the next 10 years? A number of points bear on this 
question, which might be answered very conservatively 
by some and quite liberally by others. The more orthodox 
claim is that growing stock is depleted and should be 
allowed to build up, which would mean restricted cutting. 
In a general way, this is certainly true. At the same time, 
Dr. J. V. Hofmann, of N. C. State College Division of 
Forestry, points out that a great deal of the timber in our 
stands is near-cull or definitely low-grade, and this kind 
of timber needs to be cut heavily, even if it means clearing 
everything off the ground but pine seed trees. This would 
apply more to hardwood trees than to pine, but he feels 
the principle applies to more pine stands than is ordinarily 
thought. 

Another angle is the fact that the timber, even if not 
greatly reduced in volume, is now in more scattered stands 
that are not attractive to sawmillers. 

If restricting the cut were a means of securing greatly 
increased regeneration of pine, the matter would assume 
higher importance. However, it is not more than a short 
step in that direction if, indeed, any forward movement 
were to result. Heavier cutting offers no particular help, 
either. 

A forester of the U. S. Forest Service writes: "Over- 
cutting in merchantable stands has increased in this sec- 
tion due to war conditions. So far, it is my opinion that 
there has been no solution advanced that will improve the 
situation. It is true that the cutting practices outlined by 
the Society of American Foresters Committee will defer 
the final destruction of the pine for some time. However, 
there has been no proposal made that will regenerate pine 
on sites where there is any appreciable hardwood under- 
story." 



(41) 



Since the total sawtimber stand is shown by Appraisal 
figures to have declined 6 per cent in the last 8 years, 
we might base our allowable cut for the next 10 years on 
the premise that the deficiency be restored. 

The rate of sawtimber growth is now about the same 
as it has been for the past 10 years. The rate, 2.3 billion 
board feet annually, seems to have over-cut pine by about 
12 per cent in the last 10 years. For the next 10 years an 
under-cut of 12 per cent would build back the pine grow- 
ing stock. Following these assumptions, the annual cut of 
sawtimber material would be 2.0 billion board feet. 

Hardwood cutting could go on as before. It is the pine 
that needs to be replenished. 

The calculations are believed to be on the conservative 
side, inasmuch as under-sawlog-size volume is increasing. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The major problem confronting foresters in North 
Carolina is the successful reproduction of pine on lands 
that are better suited for growing pine than hardwood. 
Hardwood succession is a natural condition being hastened 
by present systems of cutting. As pine will produce ap- 
proximately three times the volume of hardwood under 
average conditions, something must be done to insure the 
reproduction of pine if the state is to maintain its high 
production of lumber. Decrease in pine volumes will become 
serious following the maturing of present under-sawlog- 
size trees. Although there is a fair percentage of pine in 
the sawtimber and under-sawlog-size at present, only 27 
per cent of the reproduction is pine. Pine volumes have re- 
mained high in the past due to fire and land clearing and 
abandonment. Complete exclusion of fire and a land-stabili- 
zed agriculture will mean a serious reduction of pine 
volumes. The Mountain region is excluded from the above 
discussion as this area is predominantly hardwood forest. 

2. The fire problem in eastern North Carolina must be 
met by the State as a whole. It is felt that state-wide fire 
protection is a necessity and that fire control measures 
cannot be adequately provided under the present system 
of voluntary county cooperation. Provision for establishing 



and financing a state-wide system must be left to the 
General Assembly. 

3. The accumulations of hardwood cull trees and brush 
are forming an ever-increasing barrier to the development 
of good timber trees. These accumulations are the cause 
of the non-stocked condition of approximately 2 million 
acres of forest land in North Carolina. Development of 
new bulk wood-using industries will be necessary before 
the present volume of 41 million cords of usable cull trees 
can be decreased. 

4. Thousands of acres of good pine growing lands are 
non-stocked because of the complete removal of pine seed 
sources. A provision should be made to retain a source of 
pine seed. 

5. The forestry educational program should be expand- 
ed so that more of the 200 thousand landowners might 
benefit through a knowledge of good forestry practices. 

6. State-owned forests should be established in the va- 
rious regions of the state. State ownership would develop 
prestige, give training facilities for personnel, provide 
proving grounds for techniques, demonstration and re- 
search, and demonstrate financial returns. Enabling 
statutes already exist, as part of the legal framework of 
the N. C. Dept. of Conservation and Development. 

7. The total sawtimber stand has declined approximately 
6 per cent in the last eight years. If possible, this deficit 
should be made up by slightly reducing the cut of pine, 
as the pine volumes have been reduced about 12 per cent. 
Hardwood cutting could go on as before. 

8. No definite conclusions have been reached concerning 
the public regulation of cutting on private lands. Public 
opinion was divided between federal or state regulation, 
and no regulation at all. It is felt that no regulations are 
necessary for hardwood timber, but that some means 
should be employed to save a source of pine seed. 

9. Research is very definitely needed to determine the 
benefits or detriments of prescribed burning to re-establish 
pine on certain lands in this state. Burning techniques 
have been developed in other states so it is reasonable to 
suppose that techniques could be determined here. 



(42)